Theistic Evolution?

It is a mistake to dump all literalists in the same bucket and it is also a mistake to dump all scientists in the same bucket, especially if it is the evolutionary bucket.

 

Fair enough. If you will also concede that origins is not a question of the facts but rather whose interpretation is correct, the one operating under naturalistic assumptions or the one who believes in a supernatural creator.

 

Fair enough. If you will also concede that origins is not a question of the facts but rather whose interpretation is correct, the one operating under naturalistic assumptions or the one who believes in a supernatural creator. </font>[/QUOTE]Is this a fact?
2Ti 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If this is a true statement, please show me the scripture that says all science is profitable for correcting scripture. If this is not a true statement, then you have your facts wrong.

 

This has been discussed time and again on similiar threads, so I don't think it is necessary to restate all pertinant arguments here. Consider the following problems for theistic evolutionists though:

1. Interpreting the "days" of the creation account as eons. This is an exegetical impossibility within the context of the creation account, because every time the Hebrew word "yom" appears with a numerical qualifier in the OT (as it does throughout the creation account), it is always in reference to a literal 24-hour day. The burden of proof rests with theistic evolutionists to provide one example from the Hebrew OT where this is not the case.

2. Humans were not actually "created" (Heb. - "bara") in the image of God (Gen. 1:26) if theistic evolution is true. They simply evolved into homo sapiens without any notion of being created in God's image.

3. The whole death, disease, disorder, and destruction thing entering into the world before the Fall of man runs completely contrary to the plain exegesis of Scripture (especially Gen. 3 and Rom. 5-8).

4. If one argues that Gen. 1-11 is allegorical in order to make accomidation for macroevolution, then they are bound to admit that such an accomidation means no literal Adam and Eve, no literal Garden of Eden, and no literal Fall of man. And of course, if there was no literal Fall of man, then there is no literal human depravity and no need for a literal cross or a literal resurrection.

These are just a sampling of the problems created by theistic evolution when one seeks to make it work with the Bible. Someone said it right earlier: Theistic evolution was invented in an attempt to make a worldview that was forged within the fires of post-Renaissance atheism "jive" with the Bible. Theistic evolution does nothing more than place God as a bookend on an atheistic worldview. Such theories of creation deny the honest exegesis of God's special revelation, and they are to be denied on all fronts.

 

Well Lady Eagle, whatever our disagreements in the past, as my dear dispensationalist friend says, I will see you on the way up! </font>[/QUOTE] I don't know if it's the end times, but I love it when those of us who often disagree are agreeing on God's word!

Maranatha!

 

Hank, this is a great observation! Thanks!

 

Todd, thanks for your great post!

It's nice to be uplifted on the BB by the postings on God's word for a change.

 

Fair enough. If you will also concede that origins is not a question of the facts but rather whose interpretation is correct, the one operating under naturalistic assumptions or the one who believes in a supernatural creator. </font>[/QUOTE]Is this a fact?
2Ti 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If this is a true statement, please show me the scripture that says all science is profitable for correcting scripture. If this is not a true statement, then you have your facts wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]If you understood me, I am certain that I don't understand you.

Charles argued that scripture is subject to interpretation (even poor interpretation).

I am arguing that the relevant facts about origins are going to be interpretted according to naturalism (evolutionists) or else with regard to a supernatural creator (creationists/me).

If you read my comments on this subject, I think you will find that you have misunderstood me.

 

It boggles my mind (such as it is)how one could accept eveolution,theistic or otherwise.
Again the reason being the stastitical probabilities involved in getting just 2 DNA molecules to line up,one to be a man and one a woman,then they meet each other and propogate the human race. What do you think the chances of that happening are. Then we multiply the total numbers of animals,you doggies,kitties,horsies,you know stuff like that and would,nt you know it they come from whatever accident and turn into a dog, horse,or cat,male and female in close enough proximity to mate and propogate thier kind.What do you suppose the scientific stastitical probabilities of that happening would be.
In order to catalog all of the information in 1 human DNA molocule it would take a book with 35000000000 words. This suggests a designer.If we think of adding the DNA of a monkey,dog,cat,fish,whale,ape,deer,kangaroo,and on and on and on and on, then them being in proximity to recreate, those are an amazing bunch of accidents or coincidences. What do you think the odds of that happening are?Just what would be the stastitical probabilities?

I think I like the creationists point of view. God being God did it just like He said it.I'll stack my God up against Charles Darwin and his followers any day,any time, any place.

 

I'm certain I don't even know who I am arguing with any more
I was just pointing out that for a professing bible believer, it is odd not to believe the bible.

 

Well James if you read most of the posts,most of us so far agree with you.

 

Only choice for one who believes that God's Word IS God's word!!

 

Nice observation, indeed. No question it was created plenty old enough, as it was the "highest quality" wine served at the wedding feast, a major social gathering.

 

Yes, of course. The problem is that it does not fit into the personal conception of Genesis 1 - 11 held by many Christians who are unfamiliar with ancient oriental literature and the basics of Biblical hermeneutics. They interpret Genesis 1 – 11 as if it is a literal, historical, scientifically correct narrative describing the creation of the world and the fall of man. If these same people would apply the same faulty hermeneutics to Eccles. 3:19-20, they would surely be lost in sin and despair.

19. For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity.
20. All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust.

</font>[/QUOTE]By The Sea

You need to read a little further in Ecclesiastes:

Ecclesiastes 12:1-7
1 Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;
2 While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain:
3 In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,
4 And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low;
5 Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets:
6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

 

It is, however, a special case, and the fact that the creation narrative has stylistic elements above and beyond strict narrative AND the fact that the earth is shown to be billions of years old lead me at least to believe that in this particular case even with numbers present the eon interpretation can apply.

The image of God in man is not in the physical body - God is a spirit! Instead, the image of God in man is in our spiritual nature.

Nothing in the verses cited means there was no death of animals or plants before the fall of man; it is sufficient to accept these scriptures as the arrival of deat for mankind.

There is no such binding and no such linking between the narratives of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and following. Furthermore, if the Divine Word did employ figures of speech to present us with the creation narrative, and if that did include the stories of the garden of Eden as well as the days of creation, for what would the purpose be except to teach us about the reality of our sinful state and human depravity, which would still require a great salvation, such as the salvation provided by Jesus on the cross?

Theistic evolution was "invented" in order to reconcile believing in God with the facts that have been discovered relating to the age of creation and the common descent of all life on earth. Requiring people to deny these known scientific truths is placing a severe empidiment on the sincere believer . . .

 

What in the world does "stylistic elements above and beyond strict narrative" mean?

The evidence supports that creation (plant life and animals) fell with man.

The subjection of the earth to corruption and decay clearly parallels the fall of man. If death and decay came before man's sin or man's creation, what caused it? Did God create a world that was not "good?"