Could God Have Used Evolution?

[Jim1999]

There is no question that the author of Genesis is "telling" the story about creation. Not all the facts are detailed, however.

In fact, it is in the Hebrew writings we learn that a day may be only 6 hours and still considered a day. This demonstrates how important is context.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Allan]

There is no question that the author of Genesis is "telling" the story about creation. Not all the facts are detailed, however.

In fact, it is in the Hebrew writings we learn that a day may be only 6 hours and still considered a day. This demonstrates how important is context.

Cheers,

Jim

Actually what you are addressing with a day being 6 hours is never refered to as an actual 'full' day but as an aspect 'of that day' in question. Thus it can be counted as a day but you will never find four 6 hours periods called 4 days in Hebrew lit. The time frame of 'evening' and 'morning' represented times of that specific day (daylight and dark) and thus was to be called 'day' refering to one. Thus God via the Holy Spirit moved Moses to write the creation account about not only what He did but how long He took doing it.

 

[Timsings]

I have read about half of this thread, and I find it incredible that it has generated so much discussion. I think the whole discussion is irrelevant. To discuss evolution theory, even to disagree with it is to allow it to set the parameters of the argument. It makes no difference to me how God went about creating the world that we have. (I do have a problem with God creating parts of the earth which make it appear to be older than it is, as has been suggested by someone. I don't believe that God deceives us.) That has nothing to do with I am called to be as a Christian. To allow yourself to be dragged into this sort of conversation does a disservice to Christianity. To require someone to affirm a particular position about how God created is to add improper and unnecessary baggage to Christianity. Beyond that, all the talk about Noah and the flood, dinosaurs, extinct animals, the age of the Earth, etc., amounts to a lot of tap-dancing in circles. This thread should not have even been started. :BangHead:

Tim Reynolds

 

[Revmitchell]

Now since I've done a bang up job defending the evolutionist and non-literal view of creation ?

:laugh: :laugh:

 

[Allan]

I have read about half of this thread, and I find it incredible that it has generated so much discussion. I think the whole discussion is irrelevant. To discuss evolution theory, even to disagree with it is to allow it to set the parameters of the argument. It makes no difference to me how God went about creating the world that we have. (I do have a problem with God creating parts of the earth which make it appear to be older than it is, as has been suggested by someone. I don't believe that God deceives us.) That has nothing to do with I am called to be as a Christian. To allow yourself to be dragged into this sort of conversation does a disservice to Christianity. To require someone to affirm a particular position about how God created is to add improper and unnecessary baggage to Christianity. Beyond that, all the talk about Noah and the flood, dinosaurs, extinct animals, the age of the Earth, etc., amounts to a lot of tap-dancing in circles. This thread should not have even been started. :BangHead:

Tim Reynolds

I disagree, but that is ok.

One reason I disagree is found here:

2Pe 3:1 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder,
2Pe 3:2 that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior {spoken} by your apostles.
2Pe 3:3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with {their} mocking, following after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For {ever} since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."
2Pe 3:5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God {the} heavens existed long ago and {the} earth was formed out of water and by water,
2Pe 3:6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.
2Pe 3:7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

Notice there are 3 things these scoffers and mockers of God's Word will say;

1. Where is His coming? (it has always been as we know it know it now - nothing has changed) .. vs 4 Also relates to the promise to Abraham of 'His coming'.

2. That God is the one who created all things by speaking them into existence - by the word of God. (this goes back to the Gen account of the event as well as the formation of land from the water) - vs 4-(5)

3. Notice these scofferes and mockers of God will deny the actaul event of the world wide flood - vs 5-(6)

So Peter via the Holy Spirit says in the last days these scoffers who will mock God's word will hold that those things which is written in Gen is only a story, and allegory, or anything else but a fact.

Yet his whole point in relating them is that they are facts and not fiction.

 

[Allan]

:laugh: :laugh:

It should read: ..now that I've been banged up defending evolution and non-literal view of creation.. :thumbs:

 

[Gold Dragon]

Because there are specific styles of writing in any language. Hebrew literature also has some styles specific to it that we know of, such as parallelism. Several have written on Hebrew styles of writing. Leland Ryken, for one.

It doesn't take a special brain to see that Genesis is narrative. I was a literature major but you can see that without having been a lit major. Read it - is it poetry? No. Is it allegory? No. Is it narrative? Yes.

Genesis 1 is narrative poetry because it is a rhythmic and structured telling of a story. Just because something is written in poetry does not make if false. Just because something is written as a narrative does not make it true. We just need to interpret the text with the style of writing in mind. Just like you don't interpret a letter the same way you would a collection of wise sayings.

Genesis is not allegory which implies that the characters and events are symbolic of something else, like the sun being a tribal leader, the moon being his wife and the animals being their tribe or something like that.

However, it is clear that Genesis 1 is not a history book or a scientific paper. That doesn't mean it isn't true or that the events described are not historical. It just means we cannot interpret it like we would if we were reading Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews or Newton's Principia Mathematica.

 

[Gold Dragon]

However, it is clear that Genesis 1 is not a history book or a scientific paper. That doesn't mean it isn't true or that the events described are not historical. It just means we cannot interpret it like we would if we were reading Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews or Newton's Principia Mathematica.

I should also add that just because something is written as a history book or scientific paper doesn't make it true either. It just affects how we interpret what we read. When reading history books, we always need to keep in mind perspective bias and why some things were included or left out. Scientific papers always need to be critically viewed in light of new evidence.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Because there are specific styles of writing in any language. Hebrew literature also has some styles specific to it that we know of, such as parallelism. Several have written on Hebrew styles of writing. Leland Ryken, for one.

It doesn't take a special brain to see that Genesis is narrative. I was a literature major but you can see that without having been a lit major. Read it - is it poetry? No. Is it allegory? No. Is it narrative? Yes.

Using your argument then lets take the next step. (Since people seem to want me to stay on the evolutionist side of things I will). Context of the bibilical literature. What Sola Scriptura people often do without realising it in their arguments is viewing the bible contrary to what it is.

Let me explain it this way. Paul tells Timothy that all scriptures are "God Breathed" or inspired by God. What many here in the case of Genesis is taking it to be God's dictation to man rather than inspiration. Where the scriptures dictated or inspired? Most Theistic Evolutionist (and many christian theologians as well) express an understanding that the bible is made up of different catagories of literature that we find in mans cultures. What many Americans and Europeans forget is that the literature of the bible in context is that of the Middle Eastern Region literature. So applying modern american analogies to ancient middle eastern literature is inappropiate.

Where does the book of Genesis come from? Well, from the Torah or the Pentatuch. Writen by whom? Well tradition says Moses, many bible scholars view it as a combination of Moses and Joshua with the help of scribes. When reading the law in Exodus and in Deutoronomy we find that God himself took on the task of writing the law but the rest of the events described were writen by men. Men inspired by God not dictated by God. The only dictation we find is with the law itself. So God used Moses, Joshua and others with their understanding and talents and orchastrated his will in their participation to the writing of the Torah. Ok So if Moses and Joshua particpated in writing the Torah how were the early events in Genesis transmitted? It can only be assumed orally. So then what kind of literature was Genesis? Like any other creation story of the same culture of the time. Does it mean that it was not inspired? No. Do we take the Song of Songs literally? No. Is the Song of Songs not inspired? No. It is. So again Genesis was not dictated by God to man but inspired by God through mans particpation in mans cultural literature of the time to make several points about creation. That everything was created by God not any other god such as the moon or the sun or Tiamet. That there is an order to things that are directed by God. And that Salvation comes from God. This is why the creation event in Genesis is so similar to the Summerian creation event dipicted in Ennuma Elish. It is the same type of literature from the same culture.

Enuma Elish account: Genesis account:
1. begining Conquest of chaos and order 1.Opening statement (void)
2. heavens created and separated by water 2.creation of heaven and sep. waters
3. the Earth is set over the seas 3. the land appears from water
4. creation of sun and moon 4. Sun and moon set in heaven
5. (no mention of animals) 5. creation of fish birds and animals
6. Creation of man 6. the creation of humans
7. the gods rest and celebrate 7. God rests.

Eileen Schuller

So how to understand the creation event?

The six days of creation are divided into two panels of three days each that are matched.

Day 1 Heaven and earth are made--Day 4 Specific lights are fashioned in the sky
Day 2 Waters established on their own--Day 5 fish and sea creatures fill the sea
Day 3 Dry land made and vegitation added --Day 6 animals for the land and man are created.
Day 7 Epilogue: God rest after completing all creation and is in total control

--Eileen Schuller

That is taking the bible into the context of the period of the time with the type of literature it is referring to.

 

[Marcia]

I have read about half of this thread, and I find it incredible that it has generated so much discussion. I think the whole discussion is irrelevant. To discuss evolution theory, even to disagree with it is to allow it to set the parameters of the argument. It makes no difference to me how God went about creating the world that we have. (I do have a problem with God creating parts of the earth which make it appear to be older than it is, as has been suggested by someone. I don't believe that God deceives us.) That has nothing to do with I am called to be as a Christian. To allow yourself to be dragged into this sort of conversation does a disservice to Christianity. To require someone to affirm a particular position about how God created is to add improper and unnecessary baggage to Christianity. Beyond that, all the talk about Noah and the flood, dinosaurs, extinct animals, the age of the Earth, etc., amounts to a lot of tap-dancing in circles. This thread should not have even been started. :BangHead:

Tim Reynolds

Many of us want to respond to ideas we believe can be refuted from the Bible, or we want to point out those ideas violate the Bible.

If you think this is a waste of time, then don't enter the discussion. It's rather bad etiquette to get into a thread in order to tell everyone there they shouldn't be discussing the topic.

 

[Marcia]

Genesis 1 is narrative poetry because it is a rhythmic and structured telling of a story. Just because something is written in poetry does not make if false. Just because something is written as a narrative does not make it true. We just need to interpret the text with the style of writing in mind. Just like you don't interpret a letter the same way you would a collection of wise sayings.

Well, I would say narratives in the Bible are true unless the context gives us reason to think otherwise. So I disagree with that.

Genesis is not allegory which implies that the characters and events are symbolic of something else, like the sun being a tribal leader, the moon being his wife and the animals being their tribe or something like that.

I did take Hermeneutics so I am not totally in the dark on this (pun intended).

However, it is clear that Genesis 1 is not a history book or a scientific paper. That doesn't mean it isn't true or that the events described are not historical. It just means we cannot interpret it like we would if we were reading Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews or Newton's Principia Mathematica

But we can interpret it for what it plainly says: God created the world in 6 days. This is supported in Exodus 20 where God repeats it.

 

[Marcia]

Using your argument then lets take the next step. (Since people seem to want me to stay on the evolutionist side of things I will). Context of the bibilical literature. What Sola Scriptura people often do without realising it in their arguments is viewing the bible contrary to what it is.

It doesn't matter if I'm "sola scriptura" or not. What matters is what Genesis states and how it states it. Also, is what it is saying backed up elsewhere in the Bible? The answer is yes.

Let me explain it this way. Paul tells Timothy that all scriptures are "God Breathed" or inspired by God. What many here in the case of Genesis is taking it to be God's dictation to man rather than inspiration. Where the scriptures dictated or inspired? Most Theistic Evolutionist (and many christian theologians as well) express an understanding that the bible is made up of different catagories of literature that we find in mans cultures. What many Americans and Europeans forget is that the literature of the bible in context is that of the Middle Eastern Region literature. So applying modern american analogies to ancient middle eastern literature is inappropiate.

Yes, the Bible was written in the Middle East but it's from God. God does not compromise truth to accomodate culture. No one is applying anything "American" to Hebrew literature. Do you think the concept of a narrative and of poetry are just American?? Styles of Hebrew literature are known from other works outside the bible and are applied to the Old Testament.

Where does the book of Genesis come from? Well, from the Torah or the Pentatuch. Writen by whom? Well tradition says Moses, many bible scholars view it as a combination of Moses and Joshua with the help of scribes.

Jesus affirmed the Pentateuch as coming from Moses. See the 3rd point below:

Although there have been attempts to discredit Moses as the human author God utilized to write the Pentateuch, there are substantial counter-replies refuting all objections. This commentary is not the format to catalog such arguments. Suffice it to say that the rest of God’s Word accepts Mosaic authorship, for example:

• The Pentateuch itself affirms Moses as the author—Exodus 17:14; 24:4, 7; 34:27; Numbers 33:1-2; Deuteronomy 31:9
• Other Old Testament books affirm Moses as the author—Joshua 1:7, 8; 8:32, 34; 22:5; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; Ezra 6:18; Daniel 9:11-13; Malachi 4:4
• The New Testament affirms Moses as the author—Matthew 19:8; Mark 12:19, 26; Luke 20:28; 24:27, 44; John 1:17; 45; 5:46, 47; 7:19; 8:5; Acts 6:14; Romans 10:5; and 1 Corinthians 9:9; 2 Corinthians 3:15.

Source: http://www.bibleone.net/print_sbs72.html

Jesus affirmed the OT as scripture. He even referred to Abel:
"For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, in order that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.'" Luke 11:49-52

When reading the law in Exodus and in Deutoronomy we find that God himself took on the task of writing the law but the rest of the events described were writen by men. Men inspired by God not dictated by God. The only dictation we find is with the law itself.

Do you deny 2 Tim 3.16?

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Inspired means breathed into - God's words were breathed into the writings of those who penned the Bible via the Holy Spirit. The men were not inspired - the words were. There's a difference. No, it's not verbal dictation, but every word in the Bible is there because God wants it there. Otherwise, we would have to pick and choose or we could leave out what we don't like.

So God used Moses, Joshua and others with their understanding and talents and orchastrated his will in their participation to the writing of the Torah. Ok So if Moses and Joshua particpated in writing the Torah how were the early events in Genesis transmitted? It can only be assumed orally

.


Orally by whom? The words are from God.

So then what kind of literature was Genesis? Like any other creation story of the same culture of the time. Does it mean that it was not inspired? No. Do we take the Song of Songs literally? No

The Song of Songs is clearly poetry and not meant to be taken literally. Genesis is not like the Song.

So again Genesis was not dictated by God to man but inspired by God through mans particpation in mans cultural literature of the time to make several points about creation. That everything was created by God not any other god such as the moon or the sun or Tiamet. That there is an order to things that are directed by God. And that Salvation comes from God. This is why the creation event in Genesis is so similar to the Summerian creation event dipicted in Ennuma Elish. It is the same type of literature from the same culture.

So which words in Genesis can we disregard because they are not really from God? This kind of thinking reminds me of the Higher Critics. Would you like me to email you my paper on that? News flash - they have been refuted for a long time although their poisonous and anti-God words linger on in the polished halls of more liberal but spiritually dead seminaries.

Why does Jesus refer to Abel? Was Abel not real? Was Adam not real but Abel was?

Either the words in Genesis are from God or they are not.
Choose which one you believe.

 

[Allan]

Using your argument then lets take the next step. (Since people seem to want me to stay on the evolutionist side of things I will). Context of the bibilical literature. What Sola Scriptura people often do without realising it in their arguments is viewing the bible contrary to what it is.

This is simply but consistantly inaccurate. Solo Scripture does not negate liturature, styles, nor culture but actaully incorporates them all.

Let me explain it this way. Paul tells Timothy that all scriptures are "God Breathed" or inspired by God. What many here in the case of Genesis is taking it to be God's dictation to man rather than inspiration. Where the scriptures dictated or inspired?

(for the side you are playing - if this is their argument) I would honestly recommend you do a lot more study on this because you seem to not understand it at all.

Bible does not just 'contain' the word of God (which seems to be exactly what you are trying to say), it is the Word of God. Even Jesus declared scripture is 'the word of God' and not that it contained the 'word of God' (Mat 15:6; Mark 7:13; John 10:35), .

The word 'inspired' does mean God breathed but the word 'inspired' goes beyond our english rendering (which appears to be what you are tring to apply here). It is an interesting phrase since the implication is that the Scriptures are from the mouth of God and not that God gave them a desire to write some moral truthfilled things intermingled with mans' fanciful thoughts he put together based upon the current pop-culture.

Most Theistic Evolutionist (and many christian theologians as well) express an understanding that the bible is made up of different catagories of literature that we find in mans cultures. What many Americans and Europeans forget is that the literature of the bible in context is that of the Middle Eastern Region literature. So applying modern american analogies to ancient middle eastern literature is inappropiate.

No one has said otherwise - in fact it has been stated quite firmly on here the various catagories. Applying American analogies to ancient middle eastern (Specifically Hebrew) literature is appropriate as long as it is consistant with their usage/understanding.

Where does the book of Genesis come from? Well, from the Torah or the Pentatuch. Writen by whom? Well tradition says Moses, many bible scholars view it as a combination of Moses and Joshua with the help of scribes.

Incorrect. Scripture speaks specifcally to the fact that Moses was the one who penned it. Joshua most likely 'only' penned the last portion of Duet correlating to 'after' Moses death. No where in scripture Joshua creditted with helping to write Torah. It is unscholarly guess work at best to consider or report such.

Again, it is not 'tradition' but scripture which says Moses wrote it. BTW - there are not 'many' Christian bible scholars who state such non-sense but secular or the liberal minded bible scholars.

When reading the law in Exodus and in Deutoronomy we find that God himself took on the task of writing the law but the rest of the events described were writen by men. Men inspired by God not dictated by God.

Here we go again - you're using an a 21 century word 'our' definition or better and trying to apply it to a language 2000 years previous. It means God breathed.. all scripture is breathed out from God. It came from Him and was written down by them (men of God), so yes, it was dictation in a sence. God is not ignorant of man's ways to communicate and the variaty in which we do so, but God utilized all forms for various means of His own to create His Word. But His word never came forth by will of men but were carried along by His Spirit (2 Peter 1:20).

The only dictation we find is with the law itself.

Incorrect. The Law was not dicated but was written by God's own hand. But it was re-written via dictation like all the rest of scripture.

So God used Moses, Joshua and others with their understanding and talents and orchastrated his will in their participation to the writing of the Torah.

Again, you are biblically wrong regarding Joshua "and others" writting the Torah.
Yes, God used their personalities, and various view points to write exactly what He wanted to be written in the exact manner He disired it.

Ok So if Moses and Joshua particpated in writing the Torah how were the early events in Genesis transmitted? It can only be assumed orally.

Only if one disputes scripture or finds it unreliable.

So then what kind of literature was Genesis? Like any other creation story of the same culture of the time.

It wasn't written to be like the other cultures around them because they were not trying to mimic the other cultures. It is a Narritive.

Do we take the Song of Songs literally? No.

A completely different type of literature.

This is why the creation event in Genesis is so similar to the Summerian creation event dipicted in Ennuma Elish. It is the same type of literature from the same culture.

Wrong yet again. The similarities between Gen. and Ennuma Elish are not due to hearing the Summerian stories and then set down God's version of it but the Summerian version is a variation of the real story which was passed down and corrupted from the children of Noah. Oral tradition was a large part of their culture yes, but also because of this they were 'very' careful repeat it exactly as it was told them. I forget off the top of my head what they Hebrew saying was specifically but it translated approximately into .. let the father speak and the son repeat. It emphised a specific word for word re-telling. I'll have to go dig out my old OT Survey notes now However as those children walked further from the God of their fathers they began to exchange the truth for a lie (as Rom 1 declares of those who know the truth but do not want to believe it) and made their new god's into man's image - as seen quite evidently in Ennuma Elish.

BTW - I have studied it specifically in my 1st year of Collage (History of Ideas Major)- never got to finish the degree though. I would love to go back and complete it if the Lord would allow it.


Here is a good weblink for inspiration of the Word

And this one as well (I have used both on occasion)

 

[Gold Dragon]

unless the context gives us reason to think otherwise.

That was what I was referring to.

I did take Hermeneutics so I am not totally in the dark on this (pun intended).

:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Song of Songs is clearly poetry and not meant to be taken literally. Genesis is not like the Song.

This is the point. Song of Songs is a type of literature and by that nature we can expect certain things from it and not expect certain things from it. The creation account is also literature in this way not to be taken apart from what it is. It's making a point about God and Creation. Not a scientific journal.

So which words in Genesis can we disregard because they are not really from God?

Nope. From the view I mentioned everyword is from God and is expressed in a way to engage man. (my anology here is imagine a camp side fire with all the children sitting around listening to what God has to say. God is making a point and says exactly what he wants but is also engaging the children.) God points out in an engaing way that he created the world is not other gods and is in control. This is clear.

Either the words in Genesis are from God or they are not.
Choose which one you believe.

Both camps would say they are God's word but the camp I'm defending states that God doesn't want you to take it the way you're presenting it.

We differ on what inspired means I think. There was an ancient belief that the HS kindof possesses the writer of scripture and that the man writes under this possession. I don't believe that is inspiration. God uses men with their abilities and in their fashions (which includes poetry, history, alegory, etc...) so it is jointly exactly what God wants to say and exactly what the writer of the scripture wants to say with all their idiosyncracies.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

(for the side you are playing - if this is their argument) I would honestly recommend you do a lot more study on this because you seem to not understand it at all.

What don't I understand their side of the argument or the consept of inspiration?

 

[Aaron]

“Why couldn’t God have just used evolution as his means of creating the world? Why do many Christians consider it a threat to their faith?

The question isn't "could God have used Evolution," it's "did God create Evolution?"

And, Evolution is not a threat to anyone's faith. Evolution is the enemy of life, liberty and peace.

 

[Revmitchell]

The question isn't "could God have used Evolution," it's "did God create Evolution?"

And, Evolution is not a threat to anyone's faith. Evolution is the enemy of life, liberty and peace.

I didn't ask that question. Nor would I ever ask such a question. I am not sure how you ended up quoting me on this unless it was a result of my quoting someone else.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The question isn't "could God have used Evolution," it's "did God create Evolution?"

And, Evolution is not a threat to anyone's faith. Evolution is the enemy of life, liberty and peace.

Actually, I'm going to take Revmithel's point on this. Evolution can be a societal problem because the tennant is if God used it then God is using a system where the fittest survives which goes against the character of God. Look in nature there are many things that apart from the grace of God would have died out long ago. but that isn't the case. God makes a principle "the weak shall inherit the earth" not the strongest. Why would God work agianst his own principle? Evolution in science threatens Life liberty and peace because it moves from science into the social realm. Social Darwinism. The Eugenics issue in Germany during WWII is an example of how it threatens all the above. Might makes right type of thinking pervades and I should overcome you because you are weaker and don't have the right to survive. That is how this plays out in society. So yes it is a threat.

 

[lbaker]

Actually, I'm going to take Revmithel's point on this. Evolution can be a societal problem because the tennant is if God used it then God is using a system where the fittest survives which goes against the character of God. Look in nature there are many things that apart from the grace of God would have died out long ago. but that isn't the case. God makes a principle "the weak shall inherit the earth" not the strongest. Why would God work agianst his own principle? Evolution in science threatens Life liberty and peace because it moves from science into the social realm. Social Darwinism. The Eugenics issue in Germany during WWII is an example of how it threatens all the above. Might makes right type of thinking pervades and I should overcome you because you are weaker and don't have the right to survive. That is how this plays out in society. So yes it is a threat.

LOL you are like my wife - can't decide which side of the argument you are on!

Okay, all this bad stuff only happens with the theory of evolution if humans take it and apply it incorrectly. From a christian perspective love thy neighbor should always trump outcompete thy neighbor, even if you accept evolution as a viable method for God to use in Creation. It's people that are the problem, not a theory. Just look at what they did with christianity in the middle ages - crusades, inquisition, wars and more wars...look at how folks have used Scripture incorrectly to justify all kinds of stuff - slavery, etc. Doesn't mean we should throw out the Bible. "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo