• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[ Young Earth ] Eve

crossnote

Member
Joined
May 24, 2020
Messages
684
Reaction score
322
If I have it right theistic evolutionists believe that God used evolution to develop mankind to what he generally is now. (correct me if I am wrong).
My question is, how is it that in this 'evolutionary process' God halts things and produces Eve by putting Adam into a deep sleep and forming Eve from a rib taken out of Adam's side...

Genesis 2:22-24 (NASB) The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Was there not 'woman' before this as in...

Genesis 2:18 (NASB) Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

Why was Adam alone if there had been an evolutionary process already going on?
 
Since the text itself tells us that the creation story is not a literal history, it's not surprising that it uses a figurative account to describe the origin mankind. In truth, God did not suddenly realize that Adam needed a spouse and then magically make one for him. God is eternal and omniscient.
 
Since the text itself tells us that the creation story is not a literal history,
I must have missed something, somewhere between Gen 1 and Gen 2.
God did not suddenly realize that Adam needed a spouse and then magically make one for him. God is eternal and omniscient.
God is eternal and omniscient, and in His omniscience He knew He would do what He did.

Besides if theistic evolution is true, and He did not abruptly form Eve, why include Gen 2:21-23 in the creation story? How does one explain that passage away?

Genesis 2:21-23 (KJV) And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
 
Since the text itself tells us that the creation story is not a literal history, it's not surprising that it uses a figurative account to describe the origin mankind. In truth, God did not suddenly realize that Adam needed a spouse and then magically make one for him. God is eternal and omniscient.
I can't agree with that.
 
Besides if theistic evolution is true, and He did not abruptly form Eve, why include Gen 2:21-23 in the creation story? How does one explain that passage away?
Why use parables? Likely because explaining the process by which humans developed wasn't His intent.
 
I can't agree with that.
That's the good thing about it; you don't have to agree. Your salvation depends on other things, so if you don't accept the way God created humans, it doesn't really matter at all.
 
Why use parables? Likely because explaining the process by which humans developed wasn't His intent.
So God gives us a story which isn’t true in the least, thus making Him a liar.

I suppose you can assign anything a parable, or a figure of speech, which if taken more literally would make shipwreck of theistic evolution…like the forming of Eve.
 
So God gives us a story which isn’t true in the least, thus making Him a liar.
You think that Jesus was a liar for telling parables? I don't think you really do. There is a great deal of allegory, parable, and other figurative material in the Bible.

Let it be God's way.
 
That's the good thing about it; you don't have to agree. Your salvation depends on other things, so if you don't accept the way God created humans, it doesn't really matter at all.
You say the text tells us it is not a literal story.
Where does it say that?
 
Where it says there were mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them.
 
You think that Jesus was a liar for telling parables? I don't think you really do. There is a great deal of allegory, parable, and other figurative material in the Bible.

Let it be God's way.
The creation account is not a parable, otherwise the Fall is a parable as well as our sin, as well as Christ’s death for our sins.

Jesus never handled the creation account as a parable, e.g….

Matthew 19:4-5 NKJV
[4] And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' [5] and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?

This accords with…

Genesis 2:24 NKJV
[24] Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
 
The creation account is not a parable, otherwise the Fall is a parable as well as our sin, as well as Christ’s death for our sins.
The confusion here, is to assume that there can't be a figurative description of actual events and actual people. But there is. In this case, for example.

As you know, God describes what is there in the beginning, and there is neither male nor female. Jesus meant from the beginning of our race. Adam and Eve. Even in a literalist re-working of Genesis, neither Adam nor Eve were there in the beginning.
 
The confusion here, is to assume that there can't be a figurative description of actual events and actual people. But there is. In this case, for example.

As you know, God describes what is there in the beginning, and there is neither male nor female. Jesus meant from the beginning of our race. Adam and Eve. Even in a literalist re-working of Genesis, neither Adam nor Eve were there in the beginning.
Confusion occurs when people treat Divine history as metaphor.
 
Confusion occurs when people treat Divine history as metaphor.
Or mistake figurative language for literal history. Both errors happen. This is why there is no general agreement among Christians on some of these things.
 
Or mistake figurative language for literal history. Both errors happen. This is why there is no general agreement among Christians on some of these things.
Ok, that’s your opinion on the matter, I would like to hear from other theistic evolutionists that would have a different take on the Eve narrative without defaulting to spiritualizing the text.
 
Where it says there were mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them.

No, as you have been told many times. The morning and evening on the first three days were dictated by the light of God created on the first day. (Gen. 1:3) And through His light He divided the light from the darkness. (Gen. 1:4) The sun, a substitute light, replaced the light of God on the 4th day, which now divides the morning and evening.

In other words, you can't use the sun not being created till the 4th day, as an excuse to interpret the first three chapters, or any of the Bible for that matter, as figurative and not literal.

The creation accounts in (Genesis) are presented as fact and are to be believed.

Quantrill
 
No, as you have been told many times. The morning and evening on the first three days were dictated by the light of God created on the first day.
That's not what it says. If you have to redefine words to make your interpretation fit, that's a pretty good clue that it's wrong.

I don't see that we'll ever agree on this so, we'll just note that there is wide disagreement on these things among Christians, and end it.
 
You think that Jesus was a liar for telling parables? I don't think you really do. There is a great deal of allegory, parable, and other figurative material in the Bible.

Let it be God's way.
I know you replied to another, but let me reply if I may.
No, I don’t think Jesus was a liar.
What I do know is this. The word Parable is a Greek word and holds a slightly different perspective than its Jewish counterpart. The Jewish word is Mashal. A Mashal is a story with an intent. This story may have literal and figurative objects or people in it. If you interrogate a Mashal, you will miss the intent of the story.

A Mashal is a literary device used to get the listener to come to a conclusion on their own. One such example of a Mashal is when David was told a Mashal by Nathen in regard to his affair with Bathsheba after Davis killed Uriah.

Neither Genesis 1 or 2 are considered a Mashal in Jewish literary, nor does it follow the traditional components of a Mashal.
 
That's not what it says. If you have to redefine words to make your interpretation fit, that's a pretty good clue that it's wrong.

I don't see that we'll ever agree on this so, we'll just note that there is wide disagreement on these things among Christians, and end it.

That is exactly what it says. I am not redefining anything.

Of course we will never agree. You use science to interpret Scripture.

You don't believe the Bible. You believe your science.

Quantrill
 
A parable is not the only use of figurative language in the Bible. It merely shows that the Bible is often not literal, such as the figurative language used for the creation story.
 
Back
Top