Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19409 | ||
Thanks; I am indeed new here. 1) The Darwinian agent (mutation plus natural selection) can't account for, among other things, non-evolution of species like the sturgeon or the irreducible complexity of mechanisms that would have negative consequences until fully developed. The physical evidence points to macro-evolution but there is NO evidence for the agent Darwin proposed; that is pure speculation. Besides, proponents of Darwinian evolution have stated that they will accept no evidence of supernatural causes (see the Amicus Curiae brief to "Edwards v. Aguillard"), so any claims to objectivity are null. In this instance, science has inexplicably abandoned its traditional inductive approach and adopted deductive reasoning with atheism (or at best deism) as its fundamental principal. So there is no need to believe everything that evolutionists claim. As I said, theistic evolution fits the evidence better that the Darwinian variety. Modern science willfully blinds itself to this fact. 2) There had to be a point in time when the first organism containing the complete human genome appeared; God saw to it that there two - a male named Adam and a femaie named Eve. Remember that if God were directing the show, he could choose when the human genome would appear and imbue the new species with his spirit. This would, of course, attract Satan's attention and we know the rest of that story. BTW, I have no interest in "converting" creationists. I think this is an interesting discussion and one that many people have devoted a lot of thought to. I have creationist friends who think that Jesus turned the water in Cana into grape juice rather than wine - not a very literal interpretation. We all have to reconcile the testimony of the Bible with the testimony of the Creation. But it is not the testimony itself that matters, it what they testify to - a sovereign God and his son through whom he reconciles the world to himself. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
2 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Morant61 | 19445 | ||
Greetings Steve! Thanks for the response! 1) God and Evolution: This was just an interesting thought I shared with my professor in college. 2) Adam and Eve: To me, this is the most crucial problem with Theistic Evolution. I can accept to a degree that "day" may mean more than 24 hours, but Scripture is very clear about the personal creation of Adam and Eve. Theistic evolution has to ignore this and say that Adam and Eve were simply the first apes who evolved to the point they could be called man. It is at this point that I believe Theistic evolution fails. All of Scripture affirms that there was a man, Adam, who was directly created by God. It was his sin that brought sin upon us all. A second problem with Theistic evolution is that those who tend to make the first couple of chapters of Genesis into a parable also tend to go on and say all of Genesis is a parable, not history. 3) BTW: Concerning the grape juice or wine issue, grape juice is an acceptable translation when we see throughout Scripture that "wine" can refer to everything from the grape to the juice. But, that is another thread. If you interested, search for "Morant61 and wine". :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19456 | ||
Hello again; Somewhere in this thread I said that it seems to me there must have been a moment when the first organisms carrying the complete human genome - Adam and Eve - were born and imbued with God's spirit. I agree that regardless of what specific mechanism God used to create them, they must have existed. I certainly do not think that God kept his hands off during the process. As to your second point (the danger of denying the historicity of later events in Genesis), I don't see that as a problem with theistic evolution as I understand it; it's problem with unbelief. For example, Abraham must have existed if for no other reason (and there are plenty of others) than that Jesus drew specific theological lessons from his father's covenant with him. The same is true of Adam and Eve. But if Jesus ever talked about the process of creating of the universe or the time it took to do it, none of the gospel writers recorded it. If it was unimportant to Jesus, then I'm not going to get too worked up over it myself. I hope the reader will keep in mind that I'm not attacking a literal interpretation or promoting theistic evolution. I just responded to the question of whether or not one can be a Christian and believe in (some form of) evolution. I still contend that agreement on whether Genesis 1-2 is history or parable is not an essential element of the Christian faith. Agreeing that God is the Creator certainly is essential. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
4 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Morant61 | 19461 | ||
Greetings Steve! I concede that point two might not be a problem for you. However, it is for many that I have read. However, point one still concerns me. You seem to be saying that two organism eventually became human, and they were Adam and Eve. However, Scripture specifically says that Adam and Eve were both created. Adam from the earth and Eve from his rib. Adam named creation. He lived without Eve for a time. Neither one was born! For your view to work, they would have been born and grew from some lower organism. Maybe the days were not 24 hours, but Genesis is clear about Adam and Eve. Eve wasn't even in existence until God took Adam's rib from him and created her. How would harmonize the historical events surrounding their lives with Theistic Evolution? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19468 | ||
Uh, can I just say that an infinite God worked out the details in a way my finite mind can't grasp? ;-) I'll admit that if I wanted to persuade others, I'd have to give your question a lot more thought. The fact is, I bet we'll all be surprised when we get to Heaven and see how completely we've misunderstood many things that seem crystal clear to us now. My impression is that not many Christians lose their faith by succumbing to the kind of progressive doubt/rejection you described. But I know a lot of people for whom a literal reading of Genesis 1-2 is a barrier to faith. When presented with a creation story whose mechanics seem patently false to them, they reject the fact of creation and the rest of the Bible as myth. Jesus never called us to be witnesses to creation, only to him. How tragic if we drive away even one non-believer by focusing on such non-essentials. Let's at least keep in the family. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
6 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Morant61 | 19477 | ||
Greetings Steve! There are a lot of things I can never wrap my mind around! :-) How does the universe go on and on forever? Maybe, it doesn't. Then, how does it just stop? As far as unbelievers are concerned, maybe Gen. 1-2 is part of what they have to accept by faith! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||