Did the early Church believe in evolution?

[follower of Christ]

Agree. This only becomes an issue for those who are Fundamentalists and interpret Scriptures literally in every case (ex. John 6, of course).

And most of us dont interpret it all literally or even allegorically except where the text warrants it.
Genesis sets the tone as a historical account....there is no reason, except because of what fallible men want us to believe, to reject that God created the six days His account claims...

 

[francisdesales]

God's Word includes the intent - and if God tells us nature is billions of years old, then our view of Genesis 1-3 must change to accept a more metaphorical intepretation as the intent.

Not necessarily Joe. There is still the possibility that Man is and was created separately and outside the theory of evolution. Yes, I said theory; it's still a theory to me.

You are correct, I should clarify. I open myself to the possibility that this "theory" may be the scientific explanation on how God created man...I consider that the 20 billion year old universe is a more likely possibility - and find a Scriptural interpretation that does justice to the voice of nature. (which, of course, is not "law", but "theory")

My position does not have my undies in a twist trying to accept one over the other. My position stands upon the interpretation that God uses different authors and ways of expressing His Love for mankind. Thus, I open myself to a more metaphorical reading of Genesis 1-11, keeping in mind that it very well may be literal - but that I can reconcile it with modern scientific discoveries AND continue to do justice to the intent I see from Scriptures. Christ taught in parables and used metaphors, and there is no reason to think that this was the first time God spoke in such ways in Scriptures.

What if (to just speculate) God used this "period of evolution" to get His creation to the point where HE could create, in HIS image, Man? Does it have to be "status quo" evolutionary belief? What if what we call "evolution" really has HIS fingerprints all over it... a real life Intelligent Designer who somehow guided every step that the evolutionist would say was random?

I have no problem with these speculations and am open to any scientific explanation - since they do not effect my belief that Genesis 1-11 is intended to be more metaphorical then historical. I believe the Bible does not rule out such things, nor is it the intent, in my opinion (to describe the specifics, but the general concepts that God created from nothing, created order through His Word, created man last as the pinnacle of creation, made us in His image on several levels, etc..)

Let the Bible explain religious items and science explain scientific matters.

Whether God created man DIRECTLY from dirt or over a billion years through evolutionary forces that HE directed (since random evolution is a joke) is not important to me and can accept either without hurting my faith that the Scriptures are the inerrant Word of God.

Is any of this beyond the realm of the evolutionist's mindset?

I don't think all evolutionists desire to rid the world of God and make our existence depend upon random events. It doesn't need to be one extreme or the other. God certainly could have utilized evolutionary means to bring creation into existence, rather than "poof" and there was a bird... I believe the Bible uses language from 1500 BC to describe the "process".

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Agree. This only becomes an issue for those who are Fundamentalists and interpret Scriptures literally in every case (ex. John 6, of course).

And most of us dont interpret it all literally or even allegorically except where the text warrants it.
Genesis sets the tone as a historical account....there is no reason, except because of what fallible men want us to believe, to reject that God created the six days His account claims...

And you are among the fallible men that tell us we must believe Genesis "sets the tone as a historical document".

I respectfully disagree that yours is the "obvious" result of studying the Scriptures and am content with letting science do science and letting the Bible teach me about God. God can teach us something about Himself through a variety of ways, such as love stories, parables, legends, myths, narratives, and even history. That is the intent of the Bible and one should be careful not to overestimate their own abilities to KNOW the mind of God and His intent. There is no need to pretend science is always wrong to keep OUR OWN interpretations intact. That is how I see such attempts from men such as yourself.

Regards

 

[Vic C.]

You are correct, I should clarify. I open myself to the possibility that this "theory" may be the scientific explanation on how God created man...I consider that the 20 billion year old universe is a more likely possibility - and find a Scriptural interpretation that does justice to the voice of nature. (which, of course, is not "law", but "theory")

Ah, it's no longer 14.5-15 billion years? It's up to 20 billion now? :help :D

 

[follower of Christ]

And you are among the fallible men that tell us we must believe Genesis "sets the tone as a historical document".

As you are of those who apparently would say that it is not.
I can read. PROVE to me that Genesis 1 does not literally mean what it presents.
The Hebrew usage of 'yom', along with the phrase 'an evening and a morning' are VERY MUCH in agreement that LITERAL earth rotation days ARE being used in the texts.
The TEXT itself, FD, TEACHES a VERY literal creation week....like it or not. Only WE change what it actually says to suit OUR whims and beliefs.

I respectfully disagree that yours is the "obvious" result of studying the Scriptures and am content with letting science do science and letting the Bible teach me about God.

Genesis 1 DOES teach us about God. And Genesis 1-3 BEING literal are very foundational to the REST of the bible and what it teaches, including the fall of the LITERAL man Adam into sin.

Its no wonder that men want to do away with a Literal creation and a literal first man named Adam who sinned and fell and was separated from God....it causes the entire thing to be undermined and be pretty much meaningless.

 

[dadof10]

Agree. This only becomes an issue for those who are Fundamentalists and interpret Scriptures literally in every case (ex. John 6, of course).

For the Church of 250, this was not an issue, since science did not question the creation account. There would be no reason to think otherwise.

We know that God speaking through nature and the Word of God cannot contradict. When there are APPARENT contradictions, WE must change our paradigm, either with the faulty science or faulty interpretations of Scriptures. This can be a difficult thing. However, God is the author of Scriptures, and He knows the intent of His writing.

Too many people seem to think they just KNOW that God meant to write Genesis 1-3 with a literal point of view in mind, and so the voice of nature must be wrong. What they are defending is their own personal paradigms, not the Word of God. God's Word includes the intent - and if God tells us nature is billions of years old, then our view of Genesis 1-3 must change to accept a more metaphorical intepretation as the intent. The Jew didn't know this, but God certainly did.

Regards

Good points, Joe.

 

[dadof10]

And most of us dont interpret it all literally or even allegorically except where the text warrants it.
Genesis sets the tone as a historical account....there is no reason, except because of what fallible men want us to believe, to reject that God created the six days His account claims...

You only have "fallible men" as your basis for including Genesis in Scripture at all. What proof do you have that Genesis is inspired, besides what others tell you?

 

[follower of Christ]

You only have "fallible men" as your basis for including Genesis in Scripture at all. What proof do you have that Genesis is inspired, besides what others tell you?

What proof will you accept ? Anything ?

The point I made was that the precise language of Genesis 1 absolutely teaches a literal creation week.
I will discuss THAT point with you, if you wish, but I wont even bother to waste my time trying to prove inspiration. If you dont believe its inspired then nothing my feeble words will present is going to change your mind. And since I dont like to waste my time on irrelevance and fruitless issues...

 

[dadof10]

What proof will you accept ? Anything ?

The point I made was that the precise language of Genesis 1 absolutely teaches a literal creation week.
I will discuss THAT point with you, if you wish, but I wont even bother to waste my time trying to prove inspiration. If you dont believe its inspired then nothing my feeble words will present is going to change your mind. And since I dont like to waste my time on irrelevance and fruitless issues...

The point is you rely on "fallible men" for RECOGNITION of what is inspired and what is not. You also rely on fallible men to WRITE Scripture, even though we both believe these men were kept from error when writing. They were still, in the truest sense of the word, fallible. What I wrote was in response to "there is no reason, except because of what fallible men want us to believe, to reject that God created the six days His account claims..."

I don't think this is a valid argument for rejecting the possibility that the Earth was created over a longer period of time than six days. You could be right, but the "fallible men" argument falls short because we all rely on the judgment and authority of "fallible men" for facts all the time, even in the writing and recognition of Scripture.

 

[francisdesales]

You are correct, I should clarify. I open myself to the possibility that this "theory" may be the scientific explanation on how God created man...I consider that the 20 billion year old universe is a more likely possibility - and find a Scriptural interpretation that does justice to the voice of nature. (which, of course, is not "law", but "theory")

Ah, it's no longer 14.5-15 billion years? It's up to 20 billion now? :help :D

What's 5 billion years amongst friends?

:nag

 

[francisdesales]

And you are among the fallible men that tell us we must believe Genesis "sets the tone as a historical document".

As you are of those who apparently would say that it is not.

Which is exactly why I am open to either understanding, unlike your Fundamentalist stance that must do away with science because it might throw your little apple cart askew... You have painted yourself into a corner, and the more science discovers that the earth is billions of years old, the more foolish you look in your straining complaints against observable facts.

It doesn't matter to me if the earth is 6000 or 6 billion years old. I fail to see how this is such a thorny issue for such as you, except your paradigm demands literal interpretation when it is not necessary. You are presenting to me a point of view that DEMANDS literal interpretation. I am more open to the possibility that God did not INTEND to speak literally in the first chapter of Genesis. First of all, no man was present to witness creation. That should be your first cue that this is something other than a historical genre...

Unfortunately for you, you don't have the authority or the proof to make such a demand upon the text.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

The point I made was that the precise language of Genesis 1 absolutely teaches a literal creation week.

"In the beginning" isn't exactly precise language, nor is the words that follow that describe the day ending, nor the general progression of creation... Reading Genesis 1, I see more similarity to the "precise language" used in mythical tales. What are you talking about, precise language?

I will discuss THAT point with you, if you wish, but I wont even bother to waste my time trying to prove inspiration. If you dont believe its inspired then nothing my feeble words will present is going to change your mind. And since I dont like to waste my time on irrelevance and fruitless issues...

Rather than bristling up when someone addresses something you have utterly failed to show in the past, you might try reading what Dad actually wrote... I fail to see where Dad said he believes the Bible is not inspired. You missed his point, apparently, but I'll let him explain it to you.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Genesis 1 DOES teach us about God. And Genesis 1-3 BEING literal are very foundational to the REST of the bible and what it teaches, including the fall of the LITERAL man Adam into sin.

Its no wonder that men want to do away with a Literal creation and a literal first man named Adam who sinned and fell and was separated from God....it causes the entire thing to be undermined and be pretty much meaningless.

Doing away with the literal interpretation of Genesis does not mean that sin does not exist or that God did not create man for an express purpose. The "entire thing" is not undermined. The only thing that is undermined is YOUR understanding of the Word of God. Being that WE are fallible men, WE need to come to terms with the possibility that WE could be wrong on such things that the Church has NOT infallibly declared - and this is one subject that is open to interpretation. You have painted yourself into a corner, and the more evidence that is presented that shows your VIEW wrong, the more you defend your FALLIBLE position.

Quite interesting how pride works...

 

[dadof10]

"In the beginning" isn't exactly precise language, nor is the words that follow that describe the day ending, nor the general progression of creation... Reading Genesis 1, I see more similarity to the "precise language" used in mythical tales. What are you talking about, precise language?

Not to mention that on the seventh day God "rested". This is obviously metaphorical since a Spirit doesn't literally rest.