Theistic evolution

[Paul33]

Originally posted by David Ekstrom:
There is a false link between a hyper-literal interpretation of Gen 1 and inerrancy. I completely reject the false association. It's a slippery slope argument.
BTW, Charles Hodge, in many ways, one who could be considered the father of fundamentalism, did not hold to a young earth. He discusses this in his systematic theology.

I agree.

YEC who say that their interpretation is the correct one and then accuse all others of denying inerrancy are just plain wrong.

A historical-grammatical hermeneutic of Genesis 1-2 does not, IMO, teach that God created the whole universe in six days or that he created the sun, moon, and stars on day four.

I believe that the text actually teaches that the universe was created an undefined period of time ago. Genesis 1:2 teaches that the Holy Spirit hovered. It doesn't say for how long.

What did the Holy Spirit hover over? The foundation of the earth in its original creation. Geneses 1:1-2 describes God's creative power in stretching out the heavens (which includes the sun, moon, stars, planets, solar systems, galaxies, and the earth's core)!

Only later, after the Holy Spirit was done hovering, did God fashion the earth's biosphere in six literal 24 hour days.

A hyper-literal interpretation of the ENGLISH text creates havoc with the creation account. They would have us believe that God created in empty space a formless, shapeless watery planet and suspended it in space without the sun, moon, stars, or any other object in the universe!

They would have us believe that the light for the plants on day three did not come from the sun.

They misinterpret day one and read into the text. They ignore Job 38:4-9. They ignore all of the other texts in Scripture that speak of God stretching out the heavens and laying the "foundation" of the earth. Verses that accord with Genesis 1:1-2.

They have one desire, prove that the universe is 10 to 15 thousand years old, even though galaxies are billions of light years away from the earth! That would be a good reason for the Holy Spirit to hover or brood for an undefined period of time!

And then ignoring all other Scriptural evidence and natural observations to the contrary, they claim they are correct and everyone else is contradicting inerrancy.

My interpretation, which comes from Gorman Gray, allows for an old universe and a recent biosphere for the earth. And I think it is a literal interpretation of the text, squares with Scripture and Science, and maintains inerrancy.

I'm with you David.

I don't understand why so many won't accept that God created a fully functioning universe as described in Scripture and introduced in Genesis 1:1-2.

Genesis 1:3ff is clearly a description of God forming and filling a "formless" and "empty" planet, and not a description of creating a universe.

Day one: Light filters through to the earth's watery surface (Job 38:4-9). The conclusion is that God thinned the clouds that surrounded the planet earth.

Day two: God separates the water above from the water below and calls the expanse "sky." God is forming the atmosphere!

Day three: God pulls the water below into one place revealing land. God calls the gathered water "seas", and the dry ground, "land."
Then God begins to fill the ground with vegetation.

Day four: God pulls the clouds completely back and reveals the Sun, moon, and stars. He "asa" (appointed) them to govern the day and the night!

Days five and six, God continues to fill the sky, land, seas, and all that is in them! Exodus 20:11! A reference to the six days of forming and filling the earth making it habitable for man. A literal Hebrew rendering: "For six days God made the sky, the land, the seas, and all that is in them." Exactly what Genesis 1:3ff describes and Isaiah 45:18 explains.

[ July 07, 2005, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

[Paul33]

Marcia,

Once again, excellent comments.

 

[yeshua4me2]

actually in hebrew when the word "yom" is preceeded by morning, evening, morning and evening, or by an article indicating a number, the word ALWAYS means a typical day. Jesus said from the beginning he created them male and female....if the days were ages (which is NOT supported by hermenutics) then Jesus would have been lying. lets say each day was just a thousand years, then adam and eve would have been created in the middle not the beginning. also Exodus 20:9 limits it to 6 literal days if they referred to long periods God would haves used "olam". despite the teaching of Hugh Ross, creation cosmology and a young earth have lots of proof. as well as the geneology recorded in the bible, shows the earth to be about 6000 years old. i suggest checking out www.answersingenesis.com for the proof.

thank and God Bless You

 

[David Ekstrom]

yeshua, my brother, you're missing the forest for the trees. It's irrelevant to say that other times when "yom" is used associated with a number it refers to a 24-hour day. The whole point is that FIGURATIVE language is used in this case. It is totally missing the point to compare a literal reference to "day" with a metaphorical reference to "day." That's like saying: "Every time I find 'rose' used with the word "red," it refers to a literal plant. Therefore, that proves that Robert Burns was an avid gardener when he wrote, 'My love is like a red, red rose.' The guy loved flowers!" No, he's using "rose" metaphorically and so it is irrelevant if every other reference to "rose" when used with "red" was literal. In this case, it's figurative. It is irrelevant whether or not "day" with a number elsewhere refers to a 24-hour day. In this case, it appears to me and to many others to be clearly figurative.
I don't believe the six days correspond to six eras, the so-called Long Day Theory, and so your argument for lexical choice for "olam" is also missing the point. I heard Henry Morris give that argument at TEDS. It went over like a lead balloon. I don't think a single student or professor there was impressed.

I adopt my position because the text self-destructs otherwise. Furthermore, it seems to me that a hyper-literal approach to the text is seeking to provide answers that the text is not concerned about. The Bible doesn't give a hoot about Charles Darwin and his little theory. The Bible doesn't give a hoot about science. The Bible tells us that God is the Sovereign Lord who created all things that exist. Nothing was made apart from Him. The Creation-Science people are trying to turn Gen 1 and 2 into a scientific account. It is not. In fact, harmonizing Gen 1 and 2 with science is misguided. Taking a highly poetic and figurative account of God's creative actions and trying to make a video of them will only distort their original message.

 

[Paul33]

David,

I don't disagree with what you just wrote.

But what if there was an interpretation of the Hebrew text that maintained six literal 24 hour days for the creation of the earth's biosphere and also recognized that the age of the universe is undefined, and therefore, could be very old as science suggests?

Would that interpretation be worth considering?

I think Gorman Gray's proposal is sound, literal, consistent with the Hebrew text, solves the old earth/young earth controversy, and respects inerrancy.

What do you think? I would love to have someone else actually read Gray's book and dialogue with me about it.

What I have discovered, however, is that YEC discard his interpretation without much consideration, and OEC would rather maintain their position as well.

For the authors of the books on both sides, I think they have a vested interest in maintaining their arguments.

But for the rest of us, I wish there could be more discussion. Seriously, I think Gray is on to something.

 

[yeshua4me2]

it does too matter how the word is used in the rest of the bible, IN SIX DAY GOD CREATED THE EARTH and all therein.(EX20) this verse is NOT SYMBOLIC.
What is comes down to is do you believe the plain text of the bible. those who do not read and write hebrew often state that a day is not a day. of course they have very bad hermenutics. words have meaning, and you canot change their meaning to suit yourself. there is syntax in hebrew, and rules for translating (hermenutics). these rules DICTATE that the days in Genesis 1+2 are literal days. In addition JESUS said that "they were created FROM THE BEGINNING male and female." not from the middle or even the end ( in evolutionary timescale.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Marcia,

Do theistic evolutionists accept all the theories of evolution, such as man evolving from animals?

That's an interesting angle...

Most theistic evolutionists would assert that Genesis 1-11 was not intended to describe scientific truth. Most OT scholars would unilaterally agree with this.

If one believes that the Genesis was not written to give a scientific blow by blow of creation - then the Bible becomes SILENT on the scientific nuts and bolts of creation (which is a reasonable conclusion for one who sees the Bible as a theological book and not a science textbook).

If the Bible is silent on this then there is no reason to fear the fruits of scientific research. If the Bible is silent on creation's timetable then why not embrace what God has allowed us to learn using our God-given faculties.

Most theistic evolutionists would readily agree that evolution is a theory - in truth no one was there to witness it. Since the Bible is silent and there is no eye-witness then most would agree that we can only speculate. Thus many theistic evolutionists would admit that we simply don't know the answers to many of these questions.

The problem for many is that we (as humans) like to have a rulebook. We fear that if we "give up" on a literal creation then soon we'll be "giving up" on a literal resurrection. This is an argument without merit - since the NT was obviously intending to tell chronologic facts.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Marcia,

Do theistic evolutionists accept all the theories of evolution, such as man evolving from animals?

That's an interesting angle...

Most theistic evolutionists would assert that Genesis 1-11 was not intended to describe scientific truth. Most OT scholars would unilaterally agree with this.

Except for my OT prof at my seminary!

Charles, you and I may disagree on this issue, but I appreciate your gracious and polite tone.

If one believes that the Genesis was not written to give a scientific blow by blow of creation - then the Bible becomes SILENT on the scientific nuts and bolts of creation (which is a reasonable conclusion for one who sees the Bible as a theological book and not a science textbook).

If the Bible is silent on this then there is no reason to fear the fruits of scientific research. If the Bible is silent on creation's timetable then why not embrace what God has allowed us to learn using our God-given faculties.

Most theistic evolutionists would readily agree that evolution is a theory - in truth no one was there to witness it. Since the Bible is silent and there is no eye-witness then most would agree that we can only speculate. Thus many theistic evolutionists would admit that we simply don't know the answers to many of these questions.

The problem for many is that we (as humans) like to have a rulebook. We fear that if we "give up" on a literal creation then soon we'll be "giving up" on a literal resurrection. This is an argument without merit - since the NT was obviously intending to tell chronologic facts.

I see your point, and I understand that Gen. 1 and 2 are not scientific explanations, but I do believe they are true explanations. I am uncomfortable with the view that makes a false dichotomy between the Bible as "spiritual" truth and other forms of factual truth.

To me, the spiritual and the scientific and just plain ol' facts are all the same and in harmony. The dichotomy reminds me of my gnostic-like New Age past, in which one makes false divisions between the "scientific" and the "spiritual," to the detriment of the scientific, in that case, ironically. New Agers believe that "spiritual" truth supercedes the scientific and rational. This is a way to dismiss objective data against many of their beliefs.

 

[Paul33]

Marcia, I think that you are correct.

Charles, the history of the church, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries, is littered with the remains of those who discarded orthodox truths like the resurrection after first discarding the "historical" or "scientific" truths of Genesis.

 

[David Ekstrom]

Paul, I'm not familiar with Gorman Gray. If I can get to it, I'll check him out. I'd love to dialogue with you about it. His view sounds a bit like John Sailhammers. His view is shared in Expositors.
Yeshua, I can read Heb. There is nothing in the Heb text that demands a literal interpretation.
I appreciate Marcia's concern about a "spiritual" interpretation that trumps science, as though there are different kinds of truth. She's right of course. Truth is truth. I would only say that I'm not positing a "spiritual truth" but a metaphorical account. We too often read Gen 1 through the eyes of a modern Westerner. Gen 1 is an ancient Near Eastern text and should be read like one. Our "scientific" worldview is the product of the Enlightenment. It's not right or wrong, it's just different. So when Scripture describes God answering prayer as though He rode in on a thunder cloud, we look at the weather radar to see where the front is. The Psalmist just shakes his head and wonders what's the matter with us.

 

[Mercury]

I was surprised to learn from this thread that there are theistic evolutionists who do not accept evolution (or at least, not more of evolutionary theory than young-earth creationists accept). By my own definitions that position would be called old-earth creationism, but of course everyone's free to use whatever label they wish. For me, I do accept evolution, including common descent and speciation.

Originally posted by Marcia:
Because evolutionists disagree so much and are constantly changing their theories, what are we supposed to believe? Which evolutionist do we believe?

I'd suggest using the same discernment you use to make sense of the other sciences. We don't use the changing opinion as to the shape of the earth over the ages as evidence that the current idea is wrong. Even though Einstein's theories overturned or found exceptions to some of Newton's laws, we do not hold the present explanations as less valid because of this. Often, early ideas are based on little evidence and a lot of extrapolation from what would be reasonable or easy to conceptualize. As more evidence is discovered, theories often change, but it is unusual for the latter state to be as unfounded as the former state. Just because science does not give us certainty or proof doesn't mean we have no basis to accept it.

Do we believe the guy who wrote Evolution: A Theory In Crisis (I forgot his name) or is his book already outdated?

Don't just believe anybody. Focus in on a few arguments, study them so that you really understand them, and then read the rebuttals from the other side as well. Maybe make a list of a few strong arguments from either side, and then commit some time to researching them. For me, it was a study of [polystrate trees] that finally convinced me that young-earth creationism and flood geology didn't have the answer. (I didn't become convinced about evolution until much later.)

I just read in the Wash. Post the other day that science still can't answer some of the most basic questions about the universe and man. For example, what is the universe made of? The article said that 70% of the universe is "dark matter" which is another way of saying that 70% is composed of something they don't know about or don't understand.

Isn't dark matter just matter that doesn't emit light (or more broadly, radiation)? Why is it surprising that there could be a lot of matter out there that isn't lit up the way stars are?

In light of their contunuing disagreements, and with God's word being unchangeable and true, I have to stick with the latter.

Why do these disagreements and the fact that "science still can't answer some of the most basic questions" cause you to doubt evolution more than other parts of science? Why are these better reasons for rejecting evolution in favour of a certain interpretation of Genesis 1-2 than for rejecting genetics in favour of a certain interpretation of Genesis 30?

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
He did it through means--

Yes, indeed--they are supernatural--God speaks and things happen.

...as opposed to naturalistic means--natural selection and genetic mutations over a time frame which is statistically absurd--just to get a simple cell going--maybe--if the oxygen level is low enough.

False dichotomy. God speaks and things happen -- including things in nature. God's voice can command the weather, and meteorology does not contradict this. God's voice can command life, and evolutionary theory does not contradict this.

There is one major problem: how did SIN evolve?

I think a pretty good summary of how sin emerged in humans is found in Romans. It's a more prosaic description than the account in Genesis, but both are true on their own terms:

Romans 1:20-25: For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

 

[HankD]

(sigh) God's revelation does not come only in the Bible. God's revelation comes with every sunrise, every sunset, every twinkle of starlight, every excavation, every journey, every exploration, every scientific expirement, every accident.

The trick is figuring out how to interpret God's revelation. It isn't wise to put God's written word, by interpretation, against God's actual works.

Funny you should mention “sunrise” and “sunset” since the sun itself doesn’t actually “rise” and “set” but has that appearance from the surface of the earth due to the rotation of the earth upon its axis.

Therefore I would like to ask this question of all:

Should/could one conclude that the language of appearance (sunrise, sunset) when used in the Word of God (though not 100 percent accurate when compared to the empirical evidence) does not violate the infallibility/inerrancy of the Word of God?

Taking that thought a little further...

The miracle of the wine at Cana..
Often we hear from some (or used to hear) that if the earth appears to be X billions of years old but in actuality it is only thousands, then that (they claim) makes God our Father a deceiver.

I like to use as a micro-model of creation, the miracle at Cana where Jesus created wine on demand in an instant. Wine implies planting, cultivating, harvesting, processing, packaging and transporting which collectively amounts to a great deal of time.

Did Jesus deceive the people? What would a wine tasting expert say if he tasted this wine? Was the steward deceived by Jesus? If God can create wine in a moment and build into that wine an implication of time/age, then why not a universe?

Just food for thought.

I am young earth and a seven day literalist.


HankD

 

[yeshua4me2]

amen Hank

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by HankD:
Did Jesus deceive the people? What would a wine tasting expert say if he tasted this wine? Was the steward deceived by Jesus? If God can create wine in a moment and build into that wine an implication of time/age, then why not a universe?

If God created the universe to look old, then Christians should not dispute what science reveals about how old it appears to look. For instance, a scientist examining the wine Jesus made at Cana may come to the conclusion that it fermented for seven years. Scientifically, that would be a better answer than saying the wine fermented for a few minutes, and when it comes to doing other things that depend on those results (such as making more wine), the apparent fermentation time would be more useful than the actual fermentation time.

But, the other problem is that there's more than an appearance of age in the universe: there's also an appearance of history. Back to Cana, what if a wedding guest came forward and said that they saw Jesus making the wine years ago, and they saw him emptying the water from those barrels and putting this wine in instead? Then, we'd have something analogous to what we see in the universe. What point would there be for Jesus to implant those false memories into that wedding guest? I'd say there'd be no point at all, and if Jesus did so, that would be deceptive.

In the universe, we see beams of light from long ago, and along those beams are recorded historical events. If the universe is young, then those events didn't happen. When we see a star explode in a beam of light that took a million years to get here, that means that star has not existed for the last million years. And yet, if the universe is only thousands of years old, that would mean the star never existed! But we can see it explode.

If it were just an appearance of age, the wedding in Cana would be analogous, but because we also see a history in that age (whether in light from stars, the fossil record or many other details), it would indeed be deceptive if that history is false.

 

[Charles Meadows]

If God can create wine in a moment and build into that wine an implication of time/age, then why not a universe?

He could. Very true.

But as I've said before the NT is clearly stipulating that Jesus did miraculous deeds and in fact rose bodily from the dead. The creation account, on the other hand, has many features which suggest it was intended to be a theological epic.

 

[HankD]

If it were just an appearance of age, the wedding in Cana would be analogous, but because we also see a history in that age (whether in light from stars, the fossil record or many other details), it would indeed be deceptive if that history is false.

The fact that the wine is indeed wine implies a history which I reiterated above. The water content of the wine is a history of the rain it took to grow the grapes, the flavor (esters) are a history of the bio-chemical processes to make it taste like the "best wine" and the alcohol (if any) is the history of the fermentation of the grape sugars.

What of the loaves and fishes? did each fish have a separate history? Was each a clone of the original(s) What of their DNA?

Why limit God to the empirically provable?

HankD

 

[HankD]

The creation account, on the other hand, has many features which suggest it was intended to be a theological epic.

Yes and other features which strongly suggest it is a literal account with literal days.

HankD

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by HankD:
The fact that the wine is indeed wine implies a history which I reiterated above. The water content of the wine is a history of the rain it took to grow the grapes, the flavor (esters) are a history of the bio-chemical processes to make it taste like the "best wine" and the alcohol (if any) is the history of the fermentation of the grape sugars.

Yes, it implies a history, but that history is not documented. As far as we know, there was no vineyard which produced grapes that ended up in that wine. Had the historical evidence for how the wine was produced existed and been known by John, he probably would not have considered it a miracle (or "sign") -- it would be a clever trick perhaps, or an act of providence at best.

With creation, we have the documentation of that history written in beams of light and layers of rock.

Originally posted by HankD:
Why limit God to the empirically provable?

Why do you think that I do? I don't. I think Jesus created the wine at Cana and also the universe. I can't prove either one. But, the universe itself declares some information about the details of its creation that we don't posess for the wine at Cana.

 

[yeshua4me2]

dr humphries starlight and time explains why starlight contains long history with a young earth... if you are going to bring up connor and pages refuting of starlight i suggest you read http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_connpage2.pdf. there is no deception.....as long as you are willing to accept fallible mans Interpretation over the plain text of scripture this arguement will go nowhere, I sense no amount of proof will be enough. short sided straw man refutations will always be enough.

thankyou and God Bless