[_ Old Earth _] Is evolutionism compatible with the Bible?

[OzSpen]

Remember "evolutionism" is something you guys invented. But why would a parable be incompatible with science?
Evolutionism is your baby, so all the conflicts with that are your problem, not mine.

We guys did not invent 'evolutionism'.

The Oxford dictionaries states:

Charles Darwin’s caution, however, was futile: the word was ahead of him. By the end of the 18th century, evolution had become established as a general term for a process of development, especially when this involved a gradual change (‘evolutionary’ rather than ‘revolutionary’) from a simpler to a more complex state. The notion of the transformation of species had become respectable in academic circles during the early 19th century, and the word evolution was readily to hand when the geologist Charles Lyell was writing in the 1830s:

The testacea of the ocean existed first, until some of them by gradual evolution, were improved into those inhabiting the land.

Charles Lyell Principles of Geology (second edition, 1832)​

Although Charles Darwin rarely used 'evolution' in On the Origin of Species (not full title), it was used long before current creationists, e.g. by Charles Lyell.

Nevertheless, the theory of evolution is Charles Darwin's baby and not that of 'you guys'.

(image courtesy pinterest)

Oz

 

[calvin]

You sound very confident in this. Good. So what in the world is Genesis 6:4 talking about then, if not a hybrid?

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.../

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but this has been bugging me for quite awhile. I study it, word study out the words in the original language...and that's what it seems to say to me...

Hello calvin here,
I would begin my study of this topic at Gen ch 1 and then Gen 4:24b
Focusing on a single word has little value IMO.
Looking forward to the genealogy as given by Luke (ch3) it is clear that the sons of God began with Adam and continued through Seth, and indeed all who called upon the name of the Lord.
The sons of God in ch6 are those Godly seed of Seth, not angels which are asexual spirit entities.
There are a lot of different ideas about the Nephilim, who they were...even the word Nephilim is uncertain in meaning.
One thing for sure though, the wording of ch6 v4 separates these Nephilim from the society of the sons of God and also tells us (or should do) that these sons of God relate back to ch4 V24b
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.Esv,
unless one wants to deny that it is the Spirit of God who bids men to turn to God, (then as now)

 

[OzSpen]

Hello calvin here,
There is if one simply listens to deceiving spirits.

Are you saying that those evangelical Christians who believe in an old earth are engaging in the practice of deceiving spirits and young earth creationists are promoters of truth?

Oz

 

[Cygnus]

Are you saying that those evangelical Christians who believe in an old earth are engaging in the practice of deceiving spirits and young earth creationists are promoters of truth?

Oz

I don't know about Calvin...but seeing it put that way, I would say , yes.

 

[calvin]

Are you saying that those evangelical Christians who believe in an old earth are engaging in the practice of deceiving spirits and young earth creationists are promoters of truth?

Oz

G'day Oz, calvin here,
challenging as ever..you must be on the mend.
here is a link (I hope) http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books II/Jones - Chronology of the OT.pdf
Interesting no end. You may recall that I have stated previously that I do not go in for following this author or that author.
The above pdf book was stumbled on as I was seeking a simple time line graphic similar to Graeme Goldsworthy's 'Gospel and Kingdom..(I can't seem to locate my copy.
Well, I have only quickly scanned the many pages, however it seems it might be a good read. It might also answer your questions.

 

[Barbarian]

We guys did not invent 'evolutionism'.

The Oxford dictionaries states:

Charles Darwin’s caution, however, was futile: the word was ahead of him. By the end of the 18th century, evolution had become established as a general term for a process of development, especially when this involved a gradual change (‘evolutionary’ rather than ‘revolutionary’) from a simpler to a more complex state. The notion of the transformation of species had become respectable in academic circles during the early 19th century, and the word evolution was readily to hand when the geologist Charles Lyell was writing in the 1830s:

The testacea of the ocean existed first, until some of them by gradual evolution, were improved into those inhabiting the land.

Charles Lyell Principles of Geology (second edition, 1832)​

Although Charles Darwin rarely used 'evolution' in On the Origin of Species (not full title), it was used long before current creationists, e.g. by Charles Lyell.

Nevertheless, the theory of evolution is Charles Darwin's baby and not that of 'you guys'.

Nope. You've confused "evolution" and "evolutionism." You just posted an example of "evolutionism."

A linear transformation of one species into another is "evolutionism",but not part of evolutionary theory. It's a common misconception about the way it works. This is Darwin's concept:

Not a ladder, but a branching bush. This is why there's so much amusement when a creationist asks "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" Perfectly reasonable question in "evolutionism", but absurd in evolutionary theory. "Evolutionism" is a sort of summary for the misconceptions people have about evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian,

There is a massive gap between the evolutionary explanation of the origin of human beings and that by Scripture in Genesis 2.

Oz

There is a massive gap between the evidence for human origins and the new interpretation of Genesis by YE creationists. In St. Augustine's time, that would not have been an issue; Christians interpreted Genesis to be largely figurative.

 

[Cygnus]

but absurd in evolutionary theory. "Evolutionism" is a sort of summary for the misconceptions people have about evolution.

So, here's what has been happening.....someone post something detrimental to evolution....and they use the word evolutionism instead of evolution......Barbarian then forgets about what was said in the post, then moves the argument to the use of the word evolutionism. In doing so Barbarian completely avoids the issue.

 

[Barbarian]

That's your attempt to explain the creation of Adam and Eve - it's a parable.

It's the traditional way Christians understood Genesis.

That's nothing more than your assertion through using a question. You have not demonstrated to us that the early chapters of Genesis are parables.

St. Augustine of Hippo did that a long, long time before evolutionary theory existed. His work was widely accepted by Christians,and no Christian theologian argued with him about it. Since that would be apart from the message in Genesis, it really wasn't of any consequence.

Is parabolic Genesis and scientific evolution compatibility your theory that needs to be tested?

As Augustine demonstrated, a literal creation week was logically impossible, if you take the creation story as written.

 

[Barbarian]

So, here's what has been happening.....someone post something detrimental to evolution....and they use the word evolutionism instead of evolution......Barbarian then forgets about what was said in the post, then moves the argument to the use of the word evolutionism. In doing so Barbarian completely avoids the issue.

If your argument depends on conflating evolution and evolutionism (which is the misconceptions people have about evolution), isn't that an important clue?

 

[Cygnus]

If your argument depends on conflating evolution and evolutionism (which is the misconceptions people have about evolution), isn't that an important clue?

EvolitionISM = evolution. The ISM really bothers you...so much you feel the need to argue. Get over it.

 

[Barbarian]

EvolitionISM = evolution.

Just showed you another difference. This is evolutionism:

This is evolution:

It really bothers you when I point out the differences...so much you feel the need to argue. Get over it.

 

[Edward]

Hello calvin here,
I would begin my study of this topic at Gen ch 1 and then Gen 4:24b
Focusing on a single word has little value IMO.
Looking forward to the genealogy as given by Luke (ch3) it is clear that the sons of God began with Adam and continued through Seth, and indeed all who called upon the name of the Lord.
The sons of God in ch6 are those Godly seed of Seth, not angels which are asexual spirit entities.
There are a lot of different ideas about the Nephilim, who they were...even the word Nephilim is uncertain in meaning.
One thing for sure though, the wording of ch6 v4 separates these Nephilim from the society of the sons of God and also tells us (or should do) that these sons of God relate back to ch4 V24b
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.Esv,
unless one wants to deny that it is the Spirit of God who bids men to turn to God, (then as now)

I have heard and studied this sethite view and found it to have flaws in it. While it seems difficult to hold that the Angel view of Genesis 6 as dogmatic, we must be able to concur that if the sethite view were correct then it should have other scriptures to support it. These are not found by me anywhere. Some of the immediate questions that arise from the sethite view would be, If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)

Besides, if the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain had offspring together...then why are they referred to as Nephilim? That makes no sense.

How does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text in Genesis 6? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support.

Why were the children Nephilim as a result of the unions of the lines of Seth? (Bending the translation to "giants" does not resolve the difficulties.) It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seems to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood.

Procreation by parents of differing religious views do not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce "monsters," (LOL), but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children! It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood.

The very absence of any such adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah's case is also documented in Genesis 6:9: Noah's family tree was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical blemishes.

Why were the offspring uniquely designated "mighty" and "men of reknown?" This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly.

A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no "women of reknown" are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only "Y" chromosomes available in this line?)

There are other problems with the Sethite view also but this is the big one. Considering the Angel view, we would also look towards other scriptures to line up with it and support it. I found a couple which could in the NT.

"In the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established." In Biblical matters, it is essential to always compare Scripture with Scripture. The New Testament confirmations in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5
Peter's comments even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah.

Even Peter's vocabulary is provocative. Peter uses the term Tartarus, here translated "hell." This is the only place that this Greek term appears in the Bible. Tartarus is a Greek term for "dark abode of woe"; "the pit of darkness in the unseen world." As used in Homer's Iliad, it is "...as far beneath hades as the earth is below heaven`." In Greek mythology, some of the demigods, Chronos and the rebel Titans, were said to have rebelled against their father, Uranus, and after a prolonged contest they were defeated by Zeus and were condemned into Tartarus.

The Epistle of Jude also alludes to the strange episodes when these "alien" creatures intruded themselves into the human reproductive process:

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6,7
The allusions to "going after strange flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to fornication," seem to clearly fit the alien intrusions of Genesis 6. (The term for habitation, oikētērion , refers to their heavenly bodies from which they had disrobed.)

These allusions from the New Testament would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies.

So I seem to be stuck here in the Angel view. I've been wrong before, and I'm not so egotistical to not be able to admit it if I could be proven wrong. That hasn't happened. The case made for the Angel view is lots stronger than the Sethite view and has not been debunked properly and conclusively. Knowing that the enemies primary tool is deception, I really can't allow the apparent absurdity of the text of Genesis 6 to give me cognitive dissonance and reject it. However twilight zone it may sound...it actually makes much more sense than the other views that I've heard.

 

[Cygnus]

Just showed you another difference. This is evolutionism:

This is evolution:



It really bothers you when I point out the differences...so much you feel the need to argue. Get over it.

With all due respect Barbarian....you don't even know what evolution is. In fact you can't even explain how mutations have the ability to "add up" and produce changes in an animals progeny.

 

[Zackuth]

Barbarian, your arguments are valid only if the Bible is subject to people's interpretations, but it is not. Even if no one in the past, present, or future believed one word of the creation story recorded in Genesis, that still doesn't mean what is recorded in Genesis didn't occur. What is given to us in the Bible is the story God wants us to know about Him and us.
It doesn't matter how many people you bring to this discussion, or how many bright minds are quoted that deny the Word of God, the only voice that matters is God's. It is to God's voice I listen.

 

[Free]

Barbarian, your arguments are valid only if the Bible is subject to people's interpretations, but it is not. Even if no one in the past, present, or future believed one word of the creation story recorded in Genesis, that still doesn't mean what is recorded in Genesis didn't occur. What is given to us in the Bible is the story God wants us to know about Him and us.
It doesn't matter how many people you bring to this discussion, or how many bright minds are quoted that deny the Word of God, the only voice that matters is God's. It is to God's voice I listen.

While in one sense the Bible isn't subject to man's interpretations--it says what it says--it is impossible to read the Bible and not interpret it through all our biases and preconceived ideas. Although Christians tend to believe that their interpretation, or rather understanding, of the Bible is correct and all other counterviews are wrong, one must realize and be humble enough to admit they are biased and could be wrong.

 

[Cygnus]

While in one sense the Bible isn't subject to man's interpretations--it says what it says--it is impossible to read the Bible and not interpret it through all our biases and preconceived ideas. Although Christians tend to believe that their interpretation, or rather understanding, of the Bible is correct and all other counterviews are wrong, one must realize and be humble enough to admit they are biased and could be wrong.

I would say I could be wrong...I don't claim to know what the bible says 100% of the time...but I do know that Genesis explains why we have a sin nature...where evolutionism doesn't.
The problem for the Theo-Evo sect is that when they try to explain our sin nature, they always contradict what the bible says in other places....which raises a large red flag.

 

[Jim Parker]

Agreed. I think it is literal too

Then do you also believe that every astrophysicist is wrong in calculating the age of the universe at about 14 billion years?

what about the rest of Genesis, literal or metaphor?

In my opinion, some of it is literal and some is metaphor.

Like for instance, Genesis 6 and all that nephilim hybrid stuff?

I believe that is literal though the widely accepted canon of scripture does not go into great detail. You have to go to the Book of Enoch and Jubilees to get more information as well as extra-Biblical documents.

if it's literal, then it would explain very well why God did the flood in the first place, and why He would tell the Israelite's to go commit genocide on entire races of peoples, like the Canaanites.

Exactly.

 

[Free]

I would say I could be wrong...I don't claim to know what the bible says 100% of the time...but I do know that Genesis explains why we have a sin nature...where evolutionism doesn't.
The problem for the Theo-Evo sect is that when they try to explain our sin nature, they always contradict what the bible says in other places....which raises a large red flag.

Firstly, "evolutionism" is outdated and redundant. The correct term is evolution. Secondly, I don't see how evolution would mean we don't have a sin nature. If Adam and Eve were the result of evolution, then we still have the story that they sinned. Why would the rest of the story be discounted?

 

[Cygnus]

Firstly, "evolutionism" is outdated and redundant. The correct term is evolution. Secondly, I don't see how evolution would mean we don't have a sin nature. If Adam and Eve were the result of evolution, then we still have the story that they sinned. Why would the rest of the story be discounted?

If Adam and Eve were the result of evolutionism...then what of Adams parents? Siblings and friends? They didn't fall. Surely some of their progeny would still be alive today...and if not were alive for thousands of years.

So, what does the bible teach?
Romans 5:13 12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mene because all sinned—
Your theory has more than one man. It has a population which disagree's with scripture. So, so far you have not really explained why all men sin.

1st Cor 15:21 also mentions one man....For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

That is why the rest of the story would be discounted. I hope this helps explain things a bit clearer.