[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[Adam]

Do theistic evolutionists believe Gen 2:7 “Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”?

Certainly theistic evolutionists who are also Christian or practicing Jew believe the passage, but perhaps not in the way literalists might take it. I wouldn't say that the passage is vague and therefore it can and likely does resemble some evolutionary process in a minor degree. It doesn't, and to say so would be dishonest.

At the same time, as VSC has pointed out correctly, it is also incorrect to consider the passage literally, since doing so requires us to consider God as an anthropomorphic, physical being, with the necessary physical attribute to perform these actions... lungs, lips, a diaphram... perhaps a ribcage, larynx, tongue, ect. To claim the passage is meant to be strictly taken literally is also dishonest.

The short answer is "yes, we believe it is true." but also, "we have yet to understand its meaning."

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" - Chapter 11, verse 3, Hebrews

 

[Sparkey]

The examination of what happened during that intimate act of God gives a solid understanding of the invisible nature of things we may perceive.

There we may "see," for it is clearly painted for us in word images, the act of God, who not only places his mouth close to the dust of the earth (without loss of dignity) but also locates in such a fashion to "Breathe" into the nostril that which is necessary for life: The "Breath of God". Earlier we see word images painted for us of the "Spirit of God" hovering over the "face of the waters" in expectation. We see life spring out of that expectancy at the utterance of a Word! Drama is painted. Intimacy is portrayed. Life is given, proclaimed and within? Love is seen.

Where does this lead? For we do know that God is Spirit and that He is not a man. What is the "breath" that we speak of here? What is Ruach HaKodesh? What is the Pneuma of the Lord? Shall we hear more of this? Indeed we shall. He is not yet done speaking about Spirit Holy, not yet done speaking to us, now into our living hearts, about "Breath". May we hear this upon the wind? Indeed we may. All creation declares the Glory of God.

Within these passages we may enter into an understanding that God is Utterly Other. It is with fascination then that we may one-and-all seek to have the mystery revealed.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

At the same time, as VSC has pointed out correctly, it is also incorrect to consider the passage literally, since doing so requires us to consider God as an anthropomorphic, physical being, with the necessary physical attribute to perform these actions... lungs, lips, a diaphram... perhaps a ribcage, larynx, tongue, ect. To claim the passage is meant to be strictly taken literally is also dishonest.

Yeah, every time God answers your prayer as "No", He sticks His tongue out at you. :toofunny

 

[Vaccine]

The examination of what happened during that intimate act of God gives a solid understanding of the invisible nature of things we may perceive.

There we may "see," for it is clearly painted for us in word images, the act of God, who not only places his mouth close to the dust of the earth (without loss of dignity) but also locates in such a fashion to "Breathe" into the nostril that which is necessary for life: The "Breath of God". Earlier we see word images painted for us of the "Spirit of God" hovering over the "face of the waters" in expectation. We see life spring out of that expectancy at the utterance of a Word! Drama is painted. Intimacy is portrayed. Life is given, proclaimed and within? Love is seen.

Where does this lead? For we do know that God is Spirit and that He is not a man. What is the "breath" that we speak of here? What is Ruach HaKodesh? What is the Pneuma of the Lord? Shall we hear more of this? Indeed we shall. He is not yet done speaking about Spirit Holy, not yet done speaking to us, now into our living hearts, about "Breath". May we hear this upon the wind? Indeed we may. All creation declares the Glory of God.

Within these passages we may enter into an understanding that God is Utterly Other. It is with fascination then that we may one-and-all seek to have the mystery revealed.

[MENTION=13142]Sparrowhawke[/MENTION] It's very refreshing talking to Christians. I don't picture God there as anything more than a spirit, but to me that's what made God so personal.
[MENTION=89860]Adam[/MENTION] thank you for explaining that to me.

 

[Sparkey]

I don't picture God there as anything more than a spirit,

Interesting comment. I'd like to agree but frankly, I stumble when I try to "picture" God. He reveals himself and I try to grab onto what is said so that I might understand. Pretty sure this is what you're saying too.

Because I've never personally been in the Garden that was then, I can only imagine it from what I see from the "garden" that I've been transplanted into were we currently reside. The stuff that I get to see is mostly that we change. Hopefully we grow.

Sometimes I look at self and am disturbed to find that there has been what appears as a startling lack of growth or something that gives the impression that an action in the opposite direction has occurred.

But then another look to Him who cares and cultivates is given:

The 15th Chapter of the Good News as give though the pen of John, the Beloved:

[The Vine and the Branches]

1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other.

[The World Hates the Disciples]

18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.

FOOTNOTE
John 15:2(NIV)
^ [a] The Greek for he prunes also means he cleans.

 

[cupid dave]

cupid dave


What is intelligence if you quibble over what I said above?????



I agreed, but only as far as nature can explain things.

Supernatural...?

1) You insist that there is a realm of Reality that does not conform to Cause and Effect and violates the Natural Laws.
2) Is that part of ID doctrine?
3) So, Genesis for you does not need make rational and factual sense, because the events could have happened the way the churches still insist Genesis explains things, even though science criticizes those teachings?
Essentially, "God said it, end of discussion?"
4) Why is ID doctrines necessary then?

 

[cupid dave]

1) ...thanks but that is when you combine the two. the concept of Logos is order.


2) I don't call God truth.

1) "Order" is not listed nor implied in the definition of the word Logos.

Heraclitus FIRST used this word 500 years AFTER Moses, and what he meant can be read at the very bottom of the Strong's definition for Logos.
Soul or breathe as used by the Hebrews was translated as psyke' in the Greek from Nesphesh or "mind" in the Hebrew.

Why you suggest the Jews associated this word with "order," or seder, is confusing.


2) Neither do I call God Truth, because the Father is Love according to scripture.
But His son is Truth.


1 John 4:8
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

 

[cupid dave]

Do theistic evolutionists believe Gen 2:7 “Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”?

Yes, we believe everything stated in the Bible.

Gen 2:7 has been confirmed by Science which now tells us that the first man had no human father or mother, but by an Act-of-God when a mutation fused together two of the 24 ape chromosomes, in the womb of a surrogate ape mother, the first man with only 23 chromosome resulted from the Chemistry of the dust or atoms.

 

[Vaccine]

Supernatural...?

1) You insist that there is a realm of Reality that does not conform to Cause and Effect and violates the Natural Laws.
2) Is that part of ID doctrine?
3) So, Genesis for you does not need make rational and factual sense, because the events could have happened the way the churches still insist Genesis explains things, even though science criticizes those teachings?
Essentially, "God said it, end of discussion?"
4) Why is ID doctrines necessary then?

I'm used to talking to atheists and should have defined supernatural. From their point of view nature and God are two completely separate things. Thanks to VSC I realized I was being confused by the definition of nature. I understand now and completely agree with you CD. There is only one reality which conforms to the laws of cause and effect and of course intelligence does not violate the laws of nature. I didn't mean to imply intelligence can violate the laws, just meant to add it to the possible causes that exist in nature. But in doing so I see what Barbarian means about ID doesn't help explain anything to since basically everything is by design, or sounds like "God said it, end of discussion" to you. What I think ID is trying to accomplish is state adifference between:

a) God's normal works in nature are Natural causes (gravity, thermodynamics, wind, rain, lightning, etc)

b) God's special works in nature are Supernatural causes (miracles, God giving humans freewill, even animals doing something intentionally?)


An illustration of ID theory: When anarchaeologist digs up a rock and a fossil, ID in theory states he can tell which is the normal works (a rock) and which is the special works (a fossil of a life). I know it is painfully obvious, but in a world that believes atheistic evolution and nature (without God) is all there is, a theory of common sense is needed to show even nature is the product of God. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying everything is a miracle so why try explaining it, I just think ID theory kinda states what's obvious to a theist but isn't to an atheist. ID theory is not mutually exclusive to evolution either. It just says (the obvious) that we can distinguish between:

a) natural cause –evolution within a species such as peppered moths, rat snakes, resistant bactium.
b) intelligent cause – dog breeding, fruit fly experiments.theistic evolution?


I hope that clears it up and apologize if I mislead anyone.

 

[Adam]

Do theistic evolutionists believe Gen 2:7 “Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”?

Yes, we believe everything stated in the Bible.

Gen 2:7 has been confirmed by Science which now tells us that the first man had no human father or mother, but by an Act-of-God when a mutation fused together two of the 24 ape chromosomes, in the womb of a surrogate ape mother, the first man with only 23 chromosome resulted from the Chemistry of the dust or atoms.

CD, that is not, as you are fully aware, a position of the theistic evolution worldview. Neither is it a position spoken of or taught among the academics. "Science" tellls us nothing that would confirm your claim.

It is also an irrelevant or false conclusion. God breathing life into man is what the passage says. It says nothing about a chromosome fusion (which we have discussed before, by which we have firmly established that a telemore fusion does not creat any new information and certainly new species do not emerge from a single mutation, especially one of this nature).


Furthermore, there is a deep philosophical underpinning that you have missed. The passage talks of breathing life into man, not seperating man as an individual. Both address an aspect of existence, but the passage is not about relative uniqueness. It is about origins.

 

[Barbarian]

An illustration of ID theory: When anarchaeologist digs up a rock and a fossil, ID in theory states he can tell which is the normal works (a rock) and which is the special works (a fossil of a life).

You're thinking of paleontologists. And ID has nothing to do with it. This was worked out long before ID was invented.

I know it is painfully obvious, but in a world that believes atheistic evolution and nature (without God) is all there is,

You're in the wrong world. Here on Earth, most of us are theists.

a theory of common sense is needed to show even nature is the product of God.

Not a theory. Faith. There's nothing wrong with faith.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying everything is a miracle so why try explaining it, I just think ID theory kinda states what's obvious to a theist but isn't to an atheist.

"Theory" is a well-tested idea supported by evidence. ID is, as the guys who invented it, admitted, a religious doctrine.

ID theory is not mutually exclusive to evolution either. It just says (the obvious) that we can distinguish between:

a) natural cause –evolution within a species such as peppered moths, rat snakes, resistant bactium.
b) intelligent cause – dog breeding, fruit fly experiments.theistic evolution?

One reason scientists walked away from ID. Speciation is an observed fact.

 

[cupid dave]

God's special works in nature are Supernatural causes (miracles, God giving humans freewill, even animals doing something intentionally?)

This idea, that "with God, all things are possible," I understand as The Natural Law of Probability.

 

[Adam]

Forgive my blunt assesment, but it doesn't appear that you understand the laws of probabilty, then, since probability sets the limits on the amount of confidence to put into the evidence of a hypothesis in terms of a numerical ratio, while the possibility of a matter is purely binary.

Things either are possible or they aren't. A nd while you can have 100% confidence that a thing is possible, that has no bearing on whether the thing is actually possible.

 

[Arch Angle]

What you are addressing is a "trait" of god. The "poof there it is type of god". That clearly is not what happened. Maybe "god" created the universe in the same way a mother "creates" a child. The gaps in the formation of a human tree are the same gaps that appear in a developing fetus. When is an "eye" cell not a "finger" cell. To the casual observer there is no way they are the same. They must have been produced by "magic".

But to a person that see through the "body" they see a process in the laws of nature But using there is no magic as "no-god" evidence is not valid either. At best, you can claim "there is little possibility of your type of God".

Jesus showed us that literal bible is false. Any talk of bible creation first starts with the bible as "literal". Since this stance is false, any linking to it, like in creation, is a logical fallacy. It may sound good, but it no less false. I learnt this stance from the apple story. I learned that the "literal bible is false" through the bible.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

I know it is painfully obvious, but in a world that believes atheistic evolution and nature (without God) is all there is,

You're in the wrong world. Here on Earth, most of us are theists.

 

[Vaccine]

Yes, a large part of my motivation for coming to this forum, was to get away from that world an be with my brothers in christ. Even if we have slightly different views how we still agree who. And it's a lot nicer here!
Forgive my ignorance but where did Jesus teach that? are you saying nothing is to be taken literally?

 

[Free]

Jesus showed us that literal bible is false. Any talk of bible creation first starts with the bible as "literal". Since this stance is false, any linking to it, like in creation, is a logical fallacy. It may sound good, but it no less false. I learnt this stance from the apple story. I learned that the "literal bible is false" through the bible.

Jesus did no such thing, especially since the Bible wasn't around at his time.

 

[Arch Angle]

exactly free ... thank you for making it so easy.
because of that, there is no valid reason to even talk about a literal bible as "true".

in support of that stance I offer this line of reason:
how did he treat literal Jewish priest? How did he talk about them? What was the hole of his message about literal Pharisees?
What did he show us about following "the letter of law" notions?

 

[Free]

exactly free ... thank you for making it so easy.
because of that, there is no valid reason to even talk about a literal bible as "true".

No, not "exactly." In saying what you just did, you've completely changed your argument. You stated: "Jesus showed us that literal bible is false." Where in Scripture did "Jesus show us that a literal Bible is false"?

in support of that stance I offer this line of reason:
how did he treat literal Jewish priest? How did he talk about them? What was the hole of his message about literal Pharisees?
What did he show us about following "the letter of law" notions?

How Jesus treated the priests and the Pharisees in no way whatsoever shows that Jesus didn't believe the Tanakh wasn't to be taken literally or that we should then apply some sort of non-literal view to the entirety of Scripture.

 

[jasoncran]

1) ...thanks but that is when you combine the two. the concept of Logos is order.


2) I don't call God truth.


odd that isn't what the laws of logic mean or does it? logos being the root of the word logic.next the first chapter john while he uses the greek he also mentions jewish thought and is referring to the creation account. Jesus was the word and in the tanach on some versions were the yhwh THEY USED the word(merah). so that is a direct reference to whom? the father or the son?

what ever the son is so the father.