Is the Bible compatible with the theory of evolution?

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Thread title: "Is the Bible compatible with the theory of evolution?"

No.

 

[pinoybaptist]

evolution is, as you said, Jordan.
THEORY.
It is full of "could be", "might be", "possibly", and many such inconclusiveness.

the Bible is FACT.
It has none of the inconclusiveness of THEORY.
Fact: In the beginning, God. (it didn't say, in the beginning, perhaps God).

Fact: All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. (it didn't say, this is possibly because all have sinned.....)

Fact: and if I go to prepare a place for you, I WILL COME AGAIN ( not, well, we might see each other again).

Fact: He is risen. (not, could that have been the tomb ?).

I say these with no disrespect.

 

[Van]

I see we have some who proclaim the theory of evolution is not compatible with the bible. Which begs the question, are there other theories of evolution that are compatible with the Bible.

For example, if we define "evolution" as evolving or changing, then the Bible does tell us of changes. For example pre-fall and post-fall.

Or could we define evolution as life coming from non-life accidentally.

In our efforts to proclaim our truth and disparage the views of others, why not define our words and try to avoid talking past one another?

Evolution is a fact and not a theory if the "evolution" in view is the change from the life forms found in fossils to the life forms found today. Darwin's theory of evolution, however, has been completely discredited by...science. Babies do not have gills.

 

[quantumfaith]

evolution is, as you said, Jordan.
THEORY.
It is full of "could be", "might be", "possibly", and many such inconclusiveness.

the Bible is FACT.
It has none of the inconclusiveness of THEORY.
Fact: In the beginning, God. (it didn't say, in the beginning, perhaps God).

Fact: All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. (it didn't say, this is possibly because all have sinned.....)

Fact: and if I go to prepare a place for you, I WILL COME AGAIN ( not, well, we might see each other again).

Fact: He is risen. (not, could that have been the tomb ?).

I say these with no disrespect.

Although, I would be likely to agree with you, YOU cannot prove the Bible and it narratives as fact, anymore than a biologists can support evolutionary theory. Also, I suggest you are most likely using the word "theory" incorrectly. But it supports your message, so I guess that is why you do it.

 

[quantumfaith]

If the "Biologos" folks desire the believers to move away from Biblical inerrancy, it would generally place them as a group as presenting a faulty view.

Heretical isn't a word that I would use at this time.

There are many who hold that certain documents or even copies of the original are not complete or have problems - such is a discussion for a different part of the BB forums.

I mention it here just to show that disagreement as far as what is valid or not in relation to Scripture rendering is far from heretical. Unfortunately, there are few who are true scientists and at the same time theologians. Often the strength of one is not the strength of the other, and one must rely upon the findings of the other.

In my opinion, it is important that folks not think that the whole of the "Biologos" movement is something that should be embraced. There are issues within it that may or may not be true to Scriptures.

Discernment is ever the watchword with any matter concerning the believer.

Thank you for your attention to the term "heretic" et al. I certainly understand the definition of the term, but I sense it is often used, for not much more than its "sting" value. Personally, I save its use for exceptional denial of essentials of theism and christianity.

I do not think (personally) that all view points of any website or group should be whole sale accepted. I, and I expect others as well , to think and analyze for themselves.

 

[OldRegular]

The question should be: Is the theory of evolution compatible with the Bible? The answer is NO!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Van,
Sin entered the world through Adam, and we know that sin brings death.There was no sin in the world and thus no death until Adam brought sin into the world...I posted verses that say this.Also note that the the first recorded instance we have a of an animal dying in the bible is a direct result of man's sin.

Just like Jesus had to die for our sins, so throughout the O.T. does God show us that animals were being slain for our sins.

Evolution is not compatible with the bible!

 

[quantumfaith]

Van,
Sin entered the world through Adam, and we know that sin brings death.There was no sin in the world and thus no death until Adam brought sin into the world...I posted verses that say this.Also note that the the first recorded instance we have a of an animal dying in the bible is a direct result of man's sin.

Just like Jesus had to die for our sins, so throughout the O.T. does God show us that animals were being slain for our sins.

Evolution is not compatible with the bible!

There are other ways at looking at "death" which you mention.

1. Death brought on by the sin of man references the separation of mankinds relationship with God brought on by Adam's disobedience\
2. William Dembski (ID propoponet) suggests a Kairological rather than a chronological interpretation
3. There are others.

Note, Adam was told that he would die.....and yet he lived. To me this suggests something other than what many believe to be the obvious.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

There are other ways at looking at "death" which you mention.

1. Death brought on by the sin of man references the separation of mankinds relationship with God brought on by Adam's disobedience\
2. William Dembski (ID propoponet) suggests a Kairological rather than a chronological interpretation
3. There are others.

Note, Adam was told that he would die.....and yet he lived. To me this suggests something other than what many believe to be the obvious.

Did not God also curse the earth after Adam's sin?

It's obvious that Adam's sin is what brought Physical and Spiritual Death into the world.
Yes there is a spiritual death and a physical death. but Sin brings both.

 

[quantumfaith]

Did not God also curse the earth after Adam's sin?

It's obvious that Adam's sin is what brought Physical and Spiritual Death into the world.
Yes there is a spiritual death and a physical death. but Sin brings both.

I don't completely understand your point, but yes death (physical death) I believe existed long before Adam. It may be "obvious" to you....not to me. Quite the contrary, it is quite obvious to me that death was part of creation long before what we know as the event of the Fall.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I don't completely understand your point, but yes death (physical death) I believe existed long before Adam. It may be "obvious" to you....not to me. Quite the contrary, it is quite obvious to me that death was part of creation long before what we know as the event of the Fall.

And you base this on what biblical evidence or scripture?

 

[quantumfaith]

And you base this on what biblical evidence or scripture?

For one, the scriptural record stated that Adam would die on the day he partook of disobedience.....he did not.

Scripture does not speak to the age of the earth, science speaks pretty loud and clear. The earth is quite old, and life has been a big part of earth, particularly since the "cambrian explosion" of life.

It is my conviction that the scriptural record of the creation narrative is not meant to be a scientific journal, rather a simplistic statement of theological significance that it was God (YHWH) who is responsible for that is, not some other god of the caananite world.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

For one, the scriptural record stated that Adam would die on the day he partook of disobedience.....he did not.

Scripture does not speak to the age of the earth, science speaks pretty loud and clear. The earth is quite old, and life has been a big part of earth, particularly since the "cambrian explosion" of life.

It is my conviction that the scriptural record of the creation narrative is not meant to be a scientific journal, rather a simplistic statement of theological significance that it was God (YHWH) who is responsible for that is, not some other god of the caananite world.

No. no. No. There is no evidence of a "Cambrian Explosion"

And Science is something that is observable and can be proven, Science cannot prove the age of the earth period.

What "science" does is try and date the age of the earth based on assumptions: things like assuming that Carbon decay rate has always been constant, things like Circular reasoning (dating a fossil found in a rock based on a what layer of rock it is and then dating rock based on what fossils it contains). There is no way to prove an old earth or a young earth.

I believe in a young earth personally.

 

[quantumfaith]

No. no. No. There is no evidence of a "Cambrian Explosion"

And Science is something that is observable and can be proven, Science cannot prove the age of the earth period.

What "science" does is try and date the age of the earth based on assumptions: things like assuming that Carbon decay rate has always been constant, things like Circular reasoning (dating a fossil found in a rock based on a what layer of rock it is and then dating rock based on what fossils it contains). There is way to prove an old earth or a young earth.

I believe in a young earth personally.

Yes, Yes, Yes, there is solid evidence for a cambrian explosion of life. What do you mean science cannot "prove" the age of the earth. Multitudes of dating methods provide confirmation as to approximate age of the earth. Science always remains "open" in that it allows its hypotheses, theories and predictions to be altered and adjusted as more data and information is learned and processed. The estimate for a 4.5 billion age of the earth is quite compelling.

I respect your right and your YEC position, but I do not subscribe to it.

 

[InTheLight]

Van,
Sin entered the world through Adam, and we know that sin brings death.There was no sin in the world and thus no death until Adam brought sin into the world...I posted verses that say this.Also note that the the first recorded instance we have a of an animal dying in the bible is a direct result of man's sin.

Where does the Bible say that an animal was killed for Adam and Eve's clothing?

 

[InTheLight]

Did not God also curse the earth after Adam's sin?

It's obvious that Adam's sin is what brought Physical and Spiritual Death into the world.
Yes there is a spiritual death and a physical death. but Sin brings both.

Yes, brings both types of death to HUMANS, not necessarily the world.

 

[quantumfaith]

No. no. No. There is no evidence of a "Cambrian Explosion"

And Science is something that is observable and can be proven, Science cannot prove the age of the earth period.

What "science" does is try and date the age of the earth based on assumptions: things like assuming that Carbon decay rate has always been constant, things like Circular reasoning (dating a fossil found in a rock based on a what layer of rock it is and then dating rock based on what fossils it contains). There is way to prove an old earth or a young earth.

I believe in a young earth personally.

http://www.livescience.com/28098-cambrian-period.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120418131429.htm

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Where does the Bible say that an animal was killed for Adam and Eve's clothing?

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Clarke says It is very likely that the skins out of which their clothing was made were taken off animals whose blood had been poured out as a sin-offering to God; for as we find Cain and Abel offering sacrifices to God, we may fairly presume that God had given them instructions on this head; nor is it likely that the notion of a sacrifice could have ever occurred to the mind of man without an express revelation from God. Hence we may safely infer, 1. That as Adam and Eve needed this clothing as soon as they fell, and death had not as yet made any ravages in the animal world, it is most likely that the skins were taken off victims offered under the direction of God himself, and in faith of Him who, in the fullness of time, was to make an atonement by his death. And it seems reasonable also that this matter should be brought about in such a way that Satan and death should have no triumph, when the very first death that took place in the world was an emblem and type of that death which should conquer Satan, destroy his empire, reconcile God to man, convert man to God, sanctify human nature, and prepare it for heave

 

[quantumfaith]

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Clarke says It is very likely that the skins out of which their clothing was made were taken off animals whose blood had been poured out as a sin-offering to God; for as we find Cain and Abel offering sacrifices to God, we may fairly presume that God had given them instructions on this head; nor is it likely that the notion of a sacrifice could have ever occurred to the mind of man without an express revelation from God. Hence we may safely infer, 1. That as Adam and Eve needed this clothing as soon as they fell, and death had not as yet made any ravages in the animal world, it is most likely that the skins were taken off victims offered under the direction of God himself, and in faith of Him who, in the fullness of time, was to make an atonement by his death. And it seems reasonable also that this matter should be brought about in such a way that Satan and death should have no triumph, when the very first death that took place in the world was an emblem and type of that death which should conquer Satan, destroy his empire, reconcile God to man, convert man to God, sanctify human nature, and prepare it for heave

I tend to agree with you here, that the skins provided did come from the death of animals. But again, there is nothing in Genesis that suggests that death as a reality of the physical, did not exist prior to the fall. You also mentioned "type", would that be the practice of "biblical typology"? Is so, remember that there is very little difference in typology and allegorical interpretive methods.

 

[InTheLight]

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Clarke says:
It is very likely...
we may fairly presume...
nor is it likely...
we may safely infer...
it is most likely....
And it seems reasonable...

God just got done creating the world out of nothingness. Isn't it more reasonable, more likely and safer to infer that God created coats of animal skins as well? The text says "the Lord God did make coats of skin." Hmmm...