Could God Have Used Evolution?

[lbaker]

But I think you are affirming your conviction that they are.

RB

Yes, I am, although I think we may differ on what is meant to be figurative or allegory vs. what is meant to be literal. I do believe we still agree on what the basic message of Genesis 1 is - that God made everything.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Curious. There are several different views on the creation account in Genesis. Most fundalmentalist and baptist view a literal 6 day creation from the account. There is another prevelant view that genesis catagorizes creation into an outline of how God created the universe. Three days in general and three days in specific. So with both these views the adherents both say they believe in inerrancy and infaliblity. What do you say?

I think someone can hold to a non-literal interpretation of Genesis and still carry their convictions regarding the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. It is the interpretation of Genesis that lays the groundwork for these different views. I am advocating for a look at how Scripture interprets Genesis.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Yes, I am, although I think we may differ on what is meant to be figurative or allegory vs. what is meant to be literal. I do believe we still agree on what the basic message of Genesis 1 is - that God made everything.

Good. I think its helpful in dialogue when we are both operating from the same foundation--Scripture. If you take Genesis 1-11 to be figurative rather than historical, then yes, I would disagree with you. And I would contend also that so do the Apostles, Jesus, and Moses.

But do you mean by figurative or allegory that Adam, Eve, et. were not real people from whom sprang the human race? Are they just "figurative" of mankind and were not really living human beings?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I think someone can hold to a non-literal interpretation of Genesis and still carry their convictions regarding the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. It is the interpretation of Genesis that lays the groundwork for these different views. I am advocating for a look at how Scripture interprets Genesis.

So how do you propose to do that?

 

[annsni]

Don't have time to read the whole thread but here are my thoughts.

Scripture says that God spoke and it happened. That's not evolution but creation. Evolution is based on death, creation is based on life. Science cannot recreate macro-evolution and therefore it isn't true science. Nor can we recreate creation but we never said it was science. It's God.

Theistic evolution is false and a way to bend God to our own finite minds.

 

[Revmitchell]

Moses expressed the creation account as a literal 6 day event:

Exodus 20:11


Jesus expressed Genesis 1-11 as being literal:

He confirmed what Moses said John 5:45-47

Adam and Eve was literal Mark 10:6

Able as being literal Luke 11:51

Sodom and Gomorrah as being literal Matt 10:15

 

[lbaker]

Good. I think its helpful in dialogue when we are both operating from the same foundation--Scripture. If you take Genesis 1-11 to be figurative rather than historical, then yes, I would disagree with you. And I would contend also that so do the Apostles, Jesus, and Moses.

But do you mean by figurative or allegory that Adam, Eve, et. were not real people from whom sprang the human race? Are they just "figurative" of mankind and were not really living human beings?

I'm kind of open on the Adam and Eve question, I guess. I tend to think they were literal people who did live around 4,000 BC in Mesopotamia, although they weren't the first human beings. They MAY have been the first folks with a spiritual awareness though, or at least the first folks God dealt with. There is some mention of a king in that area around that time with a name very similar to Adam in the (I think) Sumerian king lists.

Question - do you believe the Universe was created literally 6,000 or so years ago, in a literal six day period?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Don't have time to read the whole thread but here are my thoughts.

Scripture says that God spoke and it happened. That's not evolution but creation. Evolution is based on death, creation is based on life. Science cannot recreate macro-evolution and therefore it isn't true science. Nor can we recreate creation but we never said it was science. It's God.

Theistic evolution is false and a way to bend God to our own finite minds.

How do you hypothesise that evolution is based on death? Evolution does not indicate weather or not there is a God. Just a process of events. Basically simple life forms to create better chances of survival adapted into more complicated life forms which becomes the plethora of things we see in today's world. It is not a statement about God or that it whether it was created. It indicates a process to explain life on planet earth. Now if you want to argue creation then maybe the Big Bang vs. Non big bang and even there there are scientist who believe an alien intelligence (God) caused that to happen.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I'm kind of open on the Adam and Eve question, I guess. I tend to think they were literal people who did live around 4,000 BC in Mesopotamia, although they weren't the first human beings. They MAY have been the first folks with a spiritual awareness though, or at least the first folks God dealt with. There is some mention of a king in that area around that time with a name very similar to Adam in the (I think) Sumerian king lists.

Question - do you believe the Universe was created literally 6,000 or so years ago, in a literal six day period?

I think there is room, biblically, for the earth/universe being between 6,000 - 10,000 years old. I believe six days are six 24-hour days.

If Adam wasn't the first human being, and there were others, how did death spread to those men who were not decendents of Adam?

Since Jesus is the Second Adam according to Scripture, how are the other humans you speak of included in His Redemption since the Scripture only speaks of each "Adam's" respective seed?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Moses expressed the creation account as a literal 6 day event:

Exodus 20:11


Jesus expressed Genesis 1-11 as being literal:

He confirmed what Moses said John 5:45-47

Adam and Eve was literal Mark 10:6

Able as being literal Luke 11:51

Sodom and Gomorrah as being literal Matt 10:15

45"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a]

Doesnt work for the argument. It's just saying Moses is telling the truth but not in what fashion.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is also the argument about the similarity between the Suma Elish and the Genesis account.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So how do you propose to do that?

Look at the Scriptures. Revmitch shared some.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

There is also the argument about the similarity between the Suma Elish and the Genesis account.

Not familiar with Suma Elish, but I am familiar with creation myths of other religous traditions similiar to Genesis. Obviously, since the flood and Noah's decendents repopulating the earth, mankind carried the true knowledge into the world, and the stories became corrupted and changed through the depravity of man. However, God preserved His truth in Holy Scripture so we have an accurate account of the global flood, origina of mankind, et.

These other accounts serve to give evidence that there did exist the true knowledge in previous ages.

RB

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Look at the Scriptures. Revmitch shared some.

I did and showed how they don't work.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Not familiar with Suma Elish, but I am familiar with creation myths of other religous traditions similiar to Genesis. Obviously, since the flood and Noah's decendents repopulating the earth, mankind carried the true knowledge into the world, and the stories became corrupted and changed through the depravity of man. However, God preserved His truth in Holy Scripture so we have an accurate account of the global flood, origina of mankind, et.

These other accounts serve to give evidence that there did exist the true knowledge in previous ages.

RB

No they show that people of the same cultural background had similar mythos.

 

[Revmitchell]

Doesnt work for the argument. It's just saying Moses is telling the truth but not in what fashion.

sigh...........


The phrase "In the beginning" lines up with a literal understanding of His creation account. Any evolutionary understanding is contrary to "In the beginning".

 

[MB]

Evolution is a religion all to it self. It's a man centerd religion where man is worshipped and does not have any established facts.

The Bible on the other hand has proved it self many times over.

Evolution is man believing a lie in spite of the truth.
MB

 

[Thinkingstuff]

sigh...........


The phrase "In the beginning" lines up with a literal understanding of His creation account. Any evolutionary understanding is contrary to "In the beginning".

"sigh...." is an argument? If you take the genesis account as being true but in an outlined format "In the begining" still applies. These verses do not state which way it was taken but that it was taken. I think Jesus account of the coin and taxes is a better indicater for a literal interpretation of genesis since he's obviously aluding to man being created in Gods image. Yet this shows this account of genesis to be taken literally yet it still doesn't address the how.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Not familiar with Suma Elish, but I am familiar with creation myths of other religous traditions similiar to Genesis. Obviously, since the flood and Noah's decendents repopulating the earth, mankind carried the true knowledge into the world, and the stories became corrupted and changed through the depravity of man. However, God preserved His truth in Holy Scripture so we have an accurate account of the global flood, origina of mankind, et.

These other accounts serve to give evidence that there did exist the true knowledge in previous ages.

RB

Sorry I got it wrong Enumma Elish. A Summerian legend.

 

[Revmitchell]

"sigh...." is an argument? If you take the genesis account as being true but in an outlined format "In the begining" still applies. These verses do not state which way it was taken but that it was taken. I think Jesus account of the coin and taxes is a better indicater for a literal interpretation of genesis since he's obviously aluding to man being created in Gods image. Yet this shows this account of genesis to be taken literally yet it still doesn't address the how.

It is contrary to evolution as that "theory" doesn't allow for man to have been created "in the beginning". I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on understanding that next time I will be more explicit.