is it possible that a person can believe in evolution

The story of Jonah is not at question here. This is irrelevant to our discussion of origins.

Jesus is referencing the scriptures which tell the story of Adam and Eve. Jesus is emphasizing the implications of the story, not tackling the question of the literalness of the story.

The story of Abraham is not at question here. This is irrelevant to our discussion of origins.

The story of Noah is not at question here. This is irrelevant to our discussion of origins.

What point are you trying to make here? How does this have implications toward our understanding of human origins?

You have failed to demonstrate that Jesus intended all of the Old Testament to be interpreted as literal historical events. Jesus used stories that were likely *historically* fictional (the parables) to make theological points, why do you believe that the same thing is impossible in the Old Testament?

 

Since Jesus referenced Jonah, it should be noted that and in Hebrew, Jonah was not in a whale's belly, but a big fish's belly (in other OT references, whales are referred to as such).

Now, since Jesus referred to Jonah as being in the belly of the whale (in greek, the word ketos, not ichthus is used), was Jesus "wrong", or was the importance not on the animal, but in the 3 day analogy?

Likewise, I'd infer than the importance of Geneses is not how we were created, but who created us. Whether humankind is 6000 years old, 60,000 years old, or 6 million years old is irrelevant to the simple fact that God created.

 

I would agree that age is not as big a factor (I am a literal six day creationist), but that is not the issue at hand. Evolution is the issue. And like it or not, evolution assumes there is no God and that we came from nothing by chance. Whether you believe creation/evolution, either way it is a step of faith. I just don't understand why so many Christians want to trust that Jesus will save them yet deny that He is their Creator. Pure evolution is not compatible with Christianity. If a Christian says that God used evolution, they are simply coming up with their own opinion and placing their faith in that. My Bible says God created, not rolled the dice, and that His creation was very good, not death and struggle to arrive at man, which is what evolution proposes. And by the way, ketos is a "great fish", not necessarily a whale, as the KJV translates it. So Jesus' reference to Jonah was correct, he used the same terminology as was used in Jonah. He did not change terms or interpret. So no, He was not wrong, and He was taking the Jonah account literal.

[ November 04, 2002, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

evolution assumes there is no God and that we came from nothing by chance

NO NO NO NO NO...

Evolution simply asserts all life evolved from a common ancestor. Typically, evolutionary change would have occurred when life forms are acted upon by an outside force. That change could be anything: climatic change, ecological change, etc. We see climate changes today, yet we don't describe them as being chance events. Evolution also need not happen by chance.

 

Johnv, what about death and struggle? How was God's creation very good then if the survival of the fittest was going on? And to say that evolution does not negate God is wrong. As has been stated over and over, it is a philosophy with NO FACTS!!!! Why does a Christian want to willingly believe it but not the Bible? And when Genesis says God created wouldn't that be logical that it was there before, so God spoke it into being? To me, evolution, even if it were a mechanism, makes our God small and limited in power. I prefer to have faith in one who simply speaks and it happens!

 

I believe it is from a messed up theology of an omnipotent Creator because of little faithed based on a very poor scientific understanding!

 

How was God's creation very good then if the survival of the fittest was going on?
Considering you look at nature today, and see survival of the fittest take place on different scales, I guess you'd have to ask God that questions.

And to say that evolution does not negate God is wrong. As has been stated over and over, it is a philosophy with NO FACTS!!!!
As one who accepts the possibility that life may have evolved in an evolutionary manner, I can tell you that my position is not a pholisiphical one. As to your second fact, there is ample evidence to suggest it.

Why does a Christian want to willingly believe it but not the Bible?
Having disagreements about how parts of the Bible should be interpreted is a far cry from accusing someone in not believing in the Bible.

And when Genesis says God created wouldn't that be logical that it was there before, so God spoke it into being?
No one on this board denies that God is the creator of all.

To me, evolution, even if it were a mechanism, makes our God small and limited in power. I prefer to have faith in one who simply speaks and it happens! We're also told that a minute to God is as a thousand years. Millions of years is nothing to an almighty God. Something happenning over a long period of time is no less "God speaking and it happening" than something happenning in a minute.

 

Johnv, I am sorry but you really didn't answer much.

God's creation before the fall was very good, not after sin has entered and marred it. If you would notice in Gen. 3:17 the earth was cursed by God, so it was no longer very good.

As for facts for evolution, I would like to see or hear about them. It is all philosophy and interpretation, not scientific fact. I have been taught evolution at a very evolutionary school where I did my undergrad work. So I am not foreign to the hypothesis of evolution. Why not check out www.icr.org or www.answersingenesis.org?

As I stated earlier, once you allegorize the the creation account, where does it stop, and on what basis do you draw the line?

I am glad that you acknowledge that God is Creator of all.

I don't really understand why time keeps coming up, but I am talking about God speaking things into existence, however long it took. I believe that it is clear that man is different from every other creature from Gen. 1:26. God created things after their own kind, not one long line springing new kinds off. If you would like to talk about the issue of time in creation that could be a different thread. We are talking about evolution, survival of the fittest, etc. Does death and struggle (before sin entered) really seem like a feasible mechanism?

[ November 04, 2002, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

Likewise, then, God's inability to find a solution to sin without brutally executing the only perfect human being to ever live would also seem to make God limited and small in power.

If evolution is the mechanism God chose to create the world, who are we to judge?

Joshua

 

It was not the inability of God to find another way, but the only way to truly show the ugliness of sin and the seriousness of it. It shows us how serious God takes our sin and how much He loves us. "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." John 15:12-14

That is hardly an adequate comparison and not even appropriate. Like apples and oranges.

 

Outstanding Baptist theologians have embraced Theistic Evolution as far back as 1906.

One such Baptist; Augustus Hopkins Strong, President and Professor of Biblical Theology in the Rochester Theological Seminary; author of Systematic Theology, Christ in Creation and others.

To suggest Strong did not take the Bible seriously would be a great injustice to a professor whose Systematic Theology was used as a major text book in Baptist seminaries.

Theistic evolution is not to be confused with Darwinism.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Yes, but during that time it seemed evolution was it. It still is promoted that way today. So people felt they needed to compromise and just say that God used evolution. But there is absolutely no need to compromise. I am not arguing that there have been great men who have believed theistic evolution, but I feel that it is a very unnecessary compromise that is really based on nothing but trying to gain acceptance with a popular worldview.

Neal

 

...in Gen. 3:17 the earth was cursed by God, so it was no longer very good If you read it in hebrew, it's not a curse upon all of earth's creation. It's a curse in which man would have to toil the land (the hebrew for earth is "adama" which is contextually used in hebrewy as land in conjunction with husbandry of the land, or tilling of the land).

As for facts for evolution, I would like to see or hear about them.
Best left for the creation/evolution forum.

once you allegorize the the creation account, where does it stop, and on what basis do you draw the line
It's not a matter of drawing the line; it's a matter of using the writings in for the intention in which they were written. I've stated earlier that I don't believe the purpose of Genesis1 was to give us a factual account of the origin of the universe.

I don't really understand why time keeps coming up, but I am talking about God speaking things into existence, however long it took. I believe that it is clear that man is different from every other creature from Gen. 1:26. God created things after their own kind, not one long line springing new kinds off.
Yes, man has a soul. We already know that God created us in his image, but that's not referring to our physical bodies, it's referring to our souls. How we got here prior to God giving us souls is, in my opinion, trifling compared to the gift of the soul itself. Evolution doesn't discuss the soul, only the origin of the physical body.

God created things after their own kind, not one long line springing new kinds off.
We could start a whole thread on that one. That passage was onece used to argue that white folk and black folk should not mate. Suffice it to say that our like and kind are members of God's creation with souls, just like us, apart from animals with no souls.

Does death and struggle (before sin entered) really seem like a feasible mechanism? Well, if you look at the Genesis story, when Adam and Eve realized they were naked, the covered themselves with animal skins, which means that there were animals that were killed, presumably for consumption, or by other animals for consumption. Even then, there were carnivours. The only thing we're sure of as far as that goes is that original sin forced us out of the garden. What was going on outside the garden before we left, we've not a clue.

 

Johnv,

You seem to have the first three chapters of Genesis confused. Man did not wear skins before they sinned, only AFTER they sinned. God is the one who killed the first animals for coverings. So you have yet to explain how a very good creation would involve death and struggle before sin entered.

On the issue of allegory, who is to say that Jesus' death and resurrection didn't happen? You say that it is not a matter of drawing a line, but how could argue against that? I could say it was the swoon theory or the disciples stole the body or whatever, but you wouldn't be able to argue against it.

Before I say this I want you to know that I don't totally understand either. But in Gen. 1:30 the word translated "life" literally means "a living soul", used in reference to animals. So I don't know if I would argue that a soul is the difference between man and animal (in the sense that a soul is a life force).

If you want to talk about racism, evolution is very supportive of it, and in fact one race being better than another is a by-product of evolution. Don't you know that Hitler believed in evolution and that it justified what he did?

Just as a side note to your "facts" of evolution, you should go to www.drdino.com because Dr. Hovind has a $250,000 offer to anyone with proof of evolution. So if you know of some, you may want to go there! (If you do, I wouldn't mind having a portion of the money as a finder's fee......just joking!)

Neal

 

So were animals not carnivours until after the fall of man?

Dr. Hovind is a religious extremist, in my view.

Any further comment belongs in the creation/evolution topic.

 

The original question was: Can a person believe in evolution and be a Christian. It has been stated that one's view on origins and continuance of the species does not preclude God as the Creator and it doesn't affect one's Christology. Hence Theistic evolution. Question answered by some who do so believe.

Cheers,

Jim

PS..The ensuing arguments do belong in another forum. Let's keep to the question at hand. Thank you

[ November 04, 2002, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Jim1999 ]

 

No need to be so short! I am still new here. Yes, animals were not carnivorous before Adam and Eve sinned (Gen. 1:30). As for Dr. Hovind, I am not saying that I agree with him all the time, but hey, there is $250,000 for the taking with proof of evolution! Besides, if we want to call people extremists and such, well, I would have to say that those comprising the clear teaching of Scripture with absolutely no good reason rather extreme. The reason I am so vocal on this issue is because for some reason Christians feel they must accept evolution, but there is NO reason to! That is my whole problem. Why would someone want to believe in evolution?????

Oh well, I appreciate you talking with me Johnv, hope there are no hurt feelings.

Neal