Is it possible to believe in both evolution and biblical creation?

[NathanH83]

Did humans evolve from apes?

Ooh eeh ah ah?

 

[Spindle4]

Is it possible to believe in both evolution and biblical creation?​

Did humans evolve from apes?

Ooh eeh ah ah?

Theistic Evolutionists manage to believe the various false teachings that contradict the Bible and ignore Romans 5.

Shame on them.

 

[kiwimac]

Did humans evolve from apes?

Ooh eeh ah ah?

We evolved from a common ancestor that we share with the great apes.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Spindle4]

We evolved from a common ancestor that we share with the great apes.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

Theistic Evolutionists think so. Bible believers believe the Bible account.

 

[kiwimac]

Theistic Evolutionists think so. Bible believers believe the Bible account.

Which one?

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Spindle4]

Which one?

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

The trustworthy one.

Theistic Evolutionists propose millions of years of random mutations and physical death prior to the arrival of human beings, and then claim only spiritual death is the punishment and curse for sin. The Bible dispels this notion, especially in Romans 8:23, speaking of the redemption of our body.

 

[kiwimac]

The trustworthy one.

Theistic Evolutionists propose millions of years of random mutations and physical death prior to the arrival of human beings, and then claim only spiritual death is the punishment and curse for sin. The Bible dispels this notion, especially in Romans 8:23, speaking of the redemption of our body.

There are several differing creation stories in the OT. Feel free to tell me which one you accept. Genesis is allegory not history.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

Did humans evolve from apes?

Ooh eeh ah ah?

I don't believe in evolution but I do flip flop on the gap theory.

 

[Pedrito]

===================================================================================

To address this topic properly, some important points need to be tabled.

They may well indicate that there is no conflict between God’s creation as recorded (only as commonly interpreted), and the modern sciences (applied without anti-religious slants). Could it be the two are actually in perfect agreement?

But unfortunately, as is demonstrated by the strong denominational loyalties displayed within CH, we can expect that in many cases (in most cases?), cherished belief will override the acceptance of simple, unadulterated analysis of information available.

===================================================================================

1. The Hebrew language, as created by God, lends itself to double meanings and plays on words.

2. The early chapters of Genesis are statements of achievement, not descriptions of mechanism.

3. The “days” (yom) in Genesis 1 may well not be 24-hour days, but time periods of unspecified duration. As elsewhere in Scripture.

4. God arranged for the early Genesis narrative to be expressed in terms that would survive generation-to-generation verbal transmission, prior to being finally recorded in the Torah. (E.g would a (meaningless) term denoting DNA have survived?)

5. If investigated dispassionately, amazing things emerge. For instance, information is revealed that could only be understood by 20th and 21st Century mankind (and beyond).

===================================================================================

To whet the appetite of anyone who might be open to stepping outside their religious comfort zone, and actually having a proper look, the following questions are proffered:

1. What do the modern sciences tell us about the statement:
Gen 2:21: ... and he took one of his ribs ((the Hebrew word also means “side”)), and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22: And the rib ((side)), which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman. …

2. What do the modern science tell us about Adam’s statement:
Gen 2:23: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

3. In then light of the above, could Eve’s statement have a significance the is normally overlooked:
Gen 4:1: I have gotten a man from the LORD.

===================================================================================

Remember, we’re talking about precise science here, not airy-fairy religious or contra-religious waffling.

===================================================================================

 

[Andrew]

===================================================================================

To address this topic properly, some important points need to be tabled.

They may well indicate that there is no conflict between God’s creation as recorded (only as commonly interpreted), and the modern sciences (applied without anti-religious slants). Could it be the two are actually in perfect agreement?

But unfortunately, as is demonstrated by the strong denominational loyalties displayed within CH, we can expect that in many cases (in most cases?), cherished belief will override the acceptance of simple, unadulterated analysis of information available.

===================================================================================

1. The Hebrew language, as created by God, lends itself to double meanings and plays on words.

2. The early chapters of Genesis are statements of achievement, not descriptions of mechanism.

3. The “days” (yom) in Genesis 1 may well not be 24-hour days, but time periods of unspecified duration. As elsewhere in Scripture.

4. God arranged for the early Genesis narrative to be expressed in terms that would survive generation-to-generation verbal transmission, prior to being finally recorded in the Torah. (E.g would a (meaningless) term denoting DNA have survived?)

5. If investigated dispassionately, amazing things emerge. For instance, information is revealed that could only be understood by 20th and 21st Century mankind (and beyond).

===================================================================================

To whet the appetite of anyone who might be open to stepping outside their religious comfort zone, and actually having a proper look, the following questions are proffered:

1. What do the modern sciences tell us about the statement:
Gen 2:21: ... and he took one of his ribs ((the Hebrew word also means “side”)), and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22: And the rib ((side)), which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman. …

2. What do the modern science tell us about Adam’s statement:
Gen 2:23: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

3. In then light of the above, could Eve’s statement have a significance the is normally overlooked:
Gen 4:1: I have gotten a man from the LORD.

===================================================================================

Remember, we’re talking about precise science here, not airy-fairy religious or contra-religious waffling.

===================================================================================

Adam had a busy 24 hour day as well.
Interacting with all species of life, naming them all, searching for a mate, going to sleep, meeting eve, eve bringing Adam forbidden fruit from her encounter with the serpent, hiding from God, being banished from eden, all before the cool of the day.

 

[NathanH83]

We evolved from a common ancestor that we share with the great apes.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

Were human beings standing upright when they were first created? Or were they hunched over like an ape?

The Bible says that man and woman were standing upright from the very beginning.

 

[Andrew]

We evolved from a common ancestor that we share with the great apes.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

The Bible says that people once lived for a very long time, now imagine what a skeleton of a 600 year old person would look like...

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Adam had a busy 24 hour day as well.
Interacting with all species of life, naming them all, searching for a mate, going to sleep, meeting eve, eve bringing Adam forbidden fruit from her encounter with the serpent, hiding from God, being banished from eden, all before the cool of the day.

We have to understand that the mental capabilities of Adam likely were far greater than present day man. Also, how many animals did he name? Over time there has been development of a lot of speices that were not necessarily present in the beginning. We know that representatives of each "kind" (not the same as species or necessarily even genus) survived the flood. Then we had about 4000 years for development of a variety of species from these kinds. What was present in the beginning may not have been much more than the kinds that went on the ark, so then Adam would not have had that many animals to name after all.

 

[Josiah]

If I may.....


As a scientist (well, formally, LOL)... I usually shy away from "science and the Bible" discussions. I've addressed this at length elsewhere and won't repeat it here.

Although I'm a physical science guy (I have LITTLE formal training in biology - that's my sister's territory, she has a Ph.D. in biology)... I think that the theistic evolution stance is POSSIBLE given simply Genesis 1-2, indeed just the OT. I have a bias that people tend to IMPOSE their worldviews (today that includes science) INTO the Bible, often leading to problems, so there's a part of me that likes this "take." And if I were a Jew, I'd probably buy into this as a possible theory (by no means doctrine).

The problem is the New Testament, especially St. Paul. It seems clear to me that the NT presents Adam and Eve as real, historic people... and their rebellion as the "cause" of the problem that Christ and Christianity addresses. Paul (and early Christianity) presented Jesus as the "Second Adam" or "unadam" - His mission to restore what Adam destroyed. If Adam never existed.... if he is ONLY a symbol or personification of humanity (as his name might even suggest), then Houston, we've got a problem! Because then Jesus isn't RESTORING anything... and Jesus then likely is also just a symbol or personification of the savior (and not actually the Savior), it would be very hard to suggest one part of this (Adam and the Fall) is symbolic but Jesus and Salvation are real (in every sense).

I think that JEWS can probably be theistic evolutionists.... I find it difficult for a CHRISTIAN to be so.

But what do I know?


A blessed Advent season to you and yours!


- Josiah





.

 

[Andrew]

We have to understand that the mental capabilities of Adam likely were far greater than present day man. Also, how many animals did he name? Over time there has been development of a lot of speices that were not necessarily present in the beginning. We know that representatives of each "kind" (not the same as species or necessarily even genus) survived the flood. Then we had about 4000 years for development of a variety of species from these kinds. What was present in the beginning may not have been much more than the kinds that went on the ark, so then Adam would not have had that many animals to name after all.

It was just in the garden so might not have been many species. I still don't think it was a literal 24 hour day, genesis calls each day of creation a generation. It has nothing to do with evolution, Adam was a complete man, but God rested on the 7th day and was walking with Adam on that day as well as the 6th until the fall

 

[Spindle4]

Genesis is allegory not history.

If that is true when do the genealogies mentioned in the Bible, including Christ's earthly ancestory, transition from being allegorical to literal?

 

[kiwimac]

If that is true when do the genealogies mentioned in the Bible, including Christ's earthly ancestory, transition from being allegorical to literal?

The NT genealogies attributed to the family of Jesus differ from gospel to gospel. They are quite late in appearance and exist to support the hypothesis that he was a descendant of king David.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[kiwimac]

Were human beings standing upright when they were first created? Or were they hunched over like an ape?

The Bible says that man and woman were standing upright from the very beginning.

The Bible is not, and never has been, a science text. That is not what it is for. The Genesis creation stories are not science telling us how the Earth came to be but much more complex tales of WHY the Earth and all things exist.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

The Bible is not, and never has been, a science text. That is not what it is for. The Genesis creation stories are not science telling us how the Earth came to be but much more complex tales of WHY the Earth and all things exist.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

The Bible is a book of truth, and science is a search for truth. If the Bible is untrue, then it’s not the Word of God.


Adam and Eve were created within the creation week. They were created to stand upright from the beginning. Human beings didn’t evolve from apes over millions of years. They were never hunched over like apes. That’s what the Bible calls “science falsely so called”.

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:”
-1 Timothy 6:20

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Timothy 6:20 - King James Version

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Fritz Kobus]

It was just in the garden so might not have been many species. I still don't think it was a literal 24 hour day, genesis calls each day of creation a generation. It has nothing to do with evolution, Adam was a complete man, but God rested on the 7th day and was walking with Adam on that day as well as the 6th until the fall

Strong's definitions:
תּוֹלְדָה tôwlᵉdâh, to-led-aw'; or תֹּלְדָה tôlᵉdâh; from H3205; (plural only) descent, i.e. family; (figuratively) history:—birth, generations.
H8435 - tôlḏôṯ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

Many translations have "history" or "account" instead of the KJV's "generations."
https://biblehub.com/genesis/2-4.htm

Also I see nothing in Genesis 2:4 that says each day is a generation. 2:4 refers collectively to the whole account, which suggests the NIV may be a more accurate translation for modern times: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."

See Merriman-Webster Dictionary definition 2b, " the process of coming or bringing into being [such as] generation of income."
Definition of GENERATION