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

[Barbarian]

Absolutly. 100% absolute. If you are old earth you are wrong. You are deceived. If you subscribe to evolutionism you are also wrong. It's more than simply my perspective, it's biblical fact.

It's your modern revision to Genesis. You aren't God; don't let pride push you into assuming your particular reasoning is God's will.

 

[Cygnus]

It's your modern revision to Genesis. You aren't God; don't let pride push you into assuming your particular reasoning is God's will.

Just presenting what the bible says in so many ways.....one of which is NOT filtering the bible through the false religion of evolutionism.

Just for the record, my pride comes from having my original ancestor created from the dust in the image of God on day 6.....not from a monkey.

 

[Barbarian]

Not so!

Evolutionism is a related term of evolution.

As nouns the difference between evolutionism and evolution
is that evolutionism is (countable) any of several theories that explain the evolution of systems or organisms while evolution is (general) gradual directional change especially one leading to a more advanced or complex form; growth; development (source).​

No, you're wrong. Evolution most often isn't directional at in a relatively constant environment, a well=fitted population will tend to vary around a mean with no direction at all. And evolution does not mean a population becomes more "advanced" or complex. Indeed, many times, evolution makes a population less complex. Mammalian jaws and shoulder girdles, for example, are less complex than those of their reptilian ancestors.​

This example I gave was of evolution and not of evolutionism, which involves explaining several theories of evolution.

No, you've been fooled by someone who knew no more than you know about it. In fact, evolutionary theory does not say chimpanzees gradually changed into humans in a direct line. From Misconceptions about Evolution:

http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/misconceptions-about-evolution/

It is you who is leading us up the garden path. This is an example of evolution and NOT evolutionism:

And now, you know better. Nothing in Darwin's theory or any subsequent modification of his theory says what you thought it says.

 

[Barbarian]

Just presenting what the bible says in so many ways....

Your new doctrine is merely someone's revision of scripture. This is why most of the world's Christians do not accept your new doctrines.

You are filtering the Bible through the false doctrine of YE creationism. It's O.K. to be a YE creationist; you won't go to Hell for having a different opinion of Genesis. But you can put your salvation in danger if you make an idol of creationism, and declare that all Christians must worship it.

 

[Zackuth]

Are you serious, Zackuth? Everything we read is subject to our understanding it - interpretation. Everything from local newspaper to school text book to the Bible!

Try interpreting this passage:

6 Lot went outside to meet them. He shut the door behind him. 7 He said, “No, my friends. Don’t do such an evil thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters that no man has ever slept with. I’ll bring them out to you now. Then do to them what you want to. But don’t do anything to these men. I’ve brought them inside so they can be safe” (Gen 19:6-8 NIRV).​

Please interpret the meaning of v. 8 for me.

Oz

I am completely serious. The Bible is God's Word, not just some collection of writings from faithful believers. Because it is God's Word, it is not subject to human interpretation, but God's. While we might bring our experiences and understandings to the Bible, they really have no place in interpreting Scriptures, Scripture must interpret Scripture.

As to verse 8; In the previous chapter, Abraham was told Sodom and Gomorrah was going to be destroyed because of the sins of the cities. Abraham knew his nephew Lot lived in the cities and asked God to spare the cities on behalf of Lot. Lot encountered two angels and he told them to spend the night in his home, their angelic nature being hidden from Lot. The men of Sodom told Lot to bring the two men out so they could have sex with them. In an attempt to keep the men safe, as he promised the two men protection, Lot offered his daughters in exchange. This is all there in Scripture.

 

[Barbarian]

And yet we are told that Adam and Eve were made distinct from the rest of the creatures in some important way. They could have been the first two modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens? Help Barbarian lol), that were specifically created in God's image, which would make any other ancestry irrelevant.

The clue is that we are said to be in God's "image." And yet God has no body. Jesus says that God is a spirit, and He says a spirit has no body.

So how exactly, are we in the "image" of God? We are created from the Earth as the other animals, but Genesis says that we are different because God directly makes us living souls. We are souls, who happen to have a body. The body is not how we are like God. As He says, we have become like Him, knowing good and evil, and thereby are potentially capable of fellowship with Him.

Not our bodies; our minds and souls. The rest is unimportant. The first two people were given immortal souls by God and that makes all the difference. Which particular kind of human they were is of no concern at all. Only that we are their descendants.

 

[Barbarian]

Please document that the 'traditional way' of interpreting Genesis is as a parable.

As you may know, St. Augustine is one of the most respected Christian theologians by all three major branches of Christianity. He made three attempts at resolving Genesis as a literal history, before concluding that there was no way to do it. He published his findings in The Literal Meaning of Genesis. No one thought to argue with him. Until the invention of YE creationism in the early 1900s, no one would have had a reason to do so.

But, says somebody, how are these people, who attribute to the sky the shape of a sphere or globe, not contradicted by what is written in our literature... it has to be demonstrated that what is said here among us about a skin is not contrary to those explanations of theirs. ... there, or in some other way, still to satisfy the tiresome people who persist in demanding a literal explanation I will say what in my opinion should be obvious to anyone of sense.
St. Augustine, On Genesis

Augustine argues that the first Genesis Creation account (1:1–2:3) cannot be interpreted in isolation, but must be set alongside the second Genesis Creation account (2:4–25), as well as every other statement about the Creation found in Scripture. For example, Augustine suggests that Psalm 33:6–9 speaks of an instantaneous creation of the world through God's creative Word, while John 5:17 points to a God who is still active within creation.


Further, he argues that a close reading of Genesis 2:4 has the following meaning: "When day was made, God made heaven and earth and every green thing of the field." This leads him to conclude that the six days of Creation are not chronological. Rather, they are a way of categorizing God's work of creation. God created the world in an instant but continues to develop and mold it, even to the present day.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html

Augustine teaches as the more probable opinion that God "made all things at once, also giving them order, not over intervals of time, but by causal connection, in order that the things that were made simultaneously might also be brought to perfection in a sixfold presentation of that day. And so the unformed and formable matter, spiritual and corporal, from which whatever was to be made would come, was the first thing made, not in the temporal, but in the causal order." 52 But the work of creation is separated in the narration of Genesis so that it can be more easily understood by those whose minds are less prepared. 53 "For the second day, the third, and the rest are not other days; but the same one day is repeated to complete the number six or seven, so that there should be knowledge both of God's works and of His rest." 54 The creation is divided in the account into six days, he says, because, according to the inner nature of numbers, 55 six is the first perfect (or complete) number, that is, it is the first number which is made up of the parts which exactly divide it added together (1+2+3), "and in this number of days God finished His work." Some may be unimpressed by this kind of interpretation, but "we must not despise the science of numbers, which in many passages of Holy Scripture is found to be of eminent service to the careful interpreter."
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt47.html#FN_56

He speaks directly to YE creationists:
"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture." - St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

There are good Christians on all sides of this question. If you deny this, you are separating yourself from Christ and His Church.

 

[Cygnus]

Your new doctrine is merely someone's revision of scripture. This is why most of the world's Christians do not accept your new doctrines.

You are filtering the Bible through the false doctrine of YE creationism. It's O.K. to be a YE creationist; you won't go to Hell for having a different opinion of Genesis. But you can put your salvation in danger if you make an idol of creationism, and declare that all Christians must worship it.

I know YEC's are not hell bent....but when you have a new religion such as evolutionism and you do away with MAJOR theology such as why we sin....I believe that religion is hell bent.

 

[Cygnus]

The first two people were given immortal souls by God and that makes all the difference. Which particular kind of human they were is of no concern at all.

We all understand....it no concern at all because of the extreme lack of biblical harmony you employe. If it were a concern you would be forced to drop that heritical religion.

Just where did sin come from?

 

[Barbarian]

I know YEC's are not hell bent....

Most YE creationists are pretty good Christians, no less than their more orthodox fellows. Most of them. Occasionally, you find one that argues that only YE creationists can be real Christians. They are headed down the wrong road if they want to spend eternity with Jesus.

Those YE creationists who have a religion such as evolutionism have made an idol of their new doctrine. And it does grevious damage to our commission to bring others to Him.

The intent, as you see above, is to convince others that the YE doctrine of "evolutionism" is evolutionary theory. It's hard to say whether that's an intentional deception or merely ignorance. But it's a great atheist-maker, as many people who realize that YE creationism cannot be true, turn away from Him, thinking that this new doctrine is an essential part of Christian belief.

I won't say it's hell-bent, but Satan surely loves it.

Edit: There's nothing hell-bent in YE Creationism; God doesn't care what you think about the way He produced the diversity of life. Insisting that one particular way of understanding is essential to being a Christian is a grave error, and very close to a heresy.

 

[Barbarian]

We all understand....it no concern at all because of the extreme lack of biblical harmony you employe.

I've already shown you that evolution is consistent scripture, while your new doctrines are often not. It's not a heresy to dissent from traditional Christian thinking on Genesis, but it's a grave error to argue that your new doctrine is essential Christian doctrine.

Just where did sin come from?

Several people have already shown this to you. Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Sin came from man being able to make a moral judgement and failing to do what was right.

 

[Zackuth]

The clue is that we are said to be in God's "image." And yet God has no body. Jesus says that God is a spirit, and He says a spirit has no body.

So how exactly, are we in the "image" of God? We are created from the Earth as the other animals, but Genesis says that we are different because God directly makes us living souls. We are souls, who happen to have a body. The body is not how we are like God. As He says, we have become like Him, knowing good and evil, and thereby are potentially capable of fellowship with Him.

Not our bodies; our minds and souls. The rest is unimportant. The first two people were given immortal souls by God and that makes all the difference. Which particular kind of human they were is of no concern at all. Only that we are their descendants.

God made us in His image of perfection, the image of sinlessness. At the end of Genesis 2 we are told that Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed of their nakedness, they were still perfect. After they disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit, they were ashamed of their nakedness. They lost the image of God, they lost perfection. In Genesis 5, we are told Adam had a son in his (Adam's) image, the image of a sinful person, and this son was named Seth. We know Cain was born to this sinful image (he murdered his brother because of jealousy), as was Abel and the rest of mankind.

 

[Cygnus]

Most YE creationists are pretty good Christians, no less than their more orthodox fellows. Most of them. Occasionally, you find one that argues that only YE creationists can be real Christians. They are headed down the wrong road if they want to spend eternity with Jesus.

That would depend upon the order of belief and whether or not evolutionism was part of the gospel presented.
It's possible that a person can be saved...then accept evolutionism as what created man. On the other hand if the gospel of evolutionism where Jesus isn't neded is preached..there is no salvation.......There is a difference Barbarian, sometimes the line is grey.

Those YE creationists who have a religion such as evolutionism have made an idol of their new doctrine. And it does grevious damage to our commission to bring others to Him.

It's funny you say that considering evolution with all of it's biblical contradictions and incompatabilities denies salvation when presented with the true gospel. The addition of Theo-Evoism where evolution (and all that goes with that theory) is added to the bible.....the gospel becomes severly watered down and changed. Sure, they admit man is a sinner and needs salvation....but can't explain our sin nature as presented in the bible when they mix it up with evolutionism.

The intent, as you see above, is to convince others that the YE doctrine of "evolutionism" is evolutionary theory. It's hard to say whether that's an intentional deception or merely ignorance. But it's a great atheist-maker, as many people who realize that YE creationism cannot be true, turn away from Him, thinking that this new doctrine is an essential part of Christian belief.

I wouldn't see the doctrine as "essential". What I do see is the theological mix of evolutionism and bible striking at the foundation of what makes certain parts of scripture essential.

I won't say it's hell-bent, but Satan surely loves it.

Explain our sin nature in a way that it doesn't conflict with the theory of evolution.....and the bible.

Edit: There's nothing hell-bent in YE Creationism; God doesn't care what you think about the way He produced the diversity of life. Insisting that one particular way of understanding is essential to being a Christian is a grave error, and very close to a heresy.

Mixing evolution and the bible is heresy. What I said in this reply above explains it. What I do see is the theological mix of evolutionism and bible striking at the foundation of what makes certain parts of scripture essential.

 

[Cygnus]

I've already shown you that evolution is consistent scripture, while your new doctrines are often not. It's not a heresy to dissent from traditional Christian thinking on Genesis, but it's a grave error to argue that your new doctrine is essential Christian doctrine.

I've asked you upon several occasions to show why this or that piece of theology is consistent with evolutionism.
Step 1) make it a parable.
Step 2) deny the inspiredness of bible authors.
Step 3) _____________________________

In you post you said..."but it's a grave error to argue that your new doctrine is essential Christian doctrine."
I answered that question already. I wish i had posted it before you wrote what you said. My answer was...What I do see is the theological mix of evolutionism and bible striking at the foundation of what makes certain parts of scripture essential.

 

[Cygnus]

I saw post 223....the funny thing is when you look at the big picture..you see what they call a common ancestor.
They present the ....common ancestor of mammals....common ancestor of 4 legged vertebrates...common ancestor of all vertebrates .
The problem is they don't have any transitional.

The big picture also wasn't very accurate in describing evolutionism....the fish didn't have a line drawn from it with a fish sprouting legs. That line would have been between the fish and the center circle. The line between the center circle and the lower circle should be removed.

 

[Cygnus]

Several people have already shown this to you. Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Sin came from man being able to make a moral judgement and failing to do what was right.

Sure, understood.....but what do you have to do with Adam and Eve to fit them in? The part of the bible that tells us Eve was made from Adams rib has to go. Man in the second part is then changed to an evolving population.

 

[Barbarian]

Sure, understood.....but what do you have to do with Adam and Eve to fit them in?

Unless you're a YE creationist, no "fitting" is necessary. Just accept it as it is.

The part of the bible that tells us Eve was made from Adams rib has to go.

As a literal history it would. But as you have seen, it's a parable, not a literal history.

 

[Barbarian]

I saw post 223....the funny thing is when you look at the big picture..you see what they call a common ancestor.
They present the ....common ancestor of mammals....common ancestor of 4 legged vertebrates...common ancestor of all vertebrates .
The problem is they don't have any transitional.

Sounds like a testable claim.

Transitionals between reptiles and mammals:

Diarthrognathus, genus of extinct, advanced mammal-like reptiles found as fossils in Early Jurassic terrestrial deposits about 200 million years old in southern Africa. Diarthrognathus was contemporaneous with a host of other mammal relatives but is nearer than many of them to the line leading to the true mammals because of its unspecialized features of skeletal anatomy and dentition. In true mammals, one jaw joint is formed by the squared bone of the skull and the dentary bone of the lower jaw. In other tetrapods, the location of this joint is determined by the intersection of the quadrate bone above and the articular bone below. In Diarthrognathus, both configurations are preserved, and both the quadrate and articular bones are reduced. These bones evolved to become two of the middle-ear bones in mammals.
https://www.britannica.com/animal/Diarthrognathus

Thrinaxodon

The cool thing is, in the fetal opossum...

Transitional quadrupeds:

Acanthostega, a fish with internal gills, lateral line system, and fish tail, but with functional legs.

Transitional vertebrate (chordate)
Conodont organism:

A true cordate, with notochord, fin rays, chevron-shaped muscles and bilateral symmetry. Not quite a vertebrate, but transitional.

Another:
Tunicates

As adults, they don't look much like the chordata, but the larval forms...

Pretty much everything you'd want to see in a transitional chordate.

The big picture also wasn't very accurate in describing evolutionism....

Well, it's your doctrine. Feel free to post another one, if you don't think the one you did was a good description.

 

[Barbarian]

I've asked you upon several occasions to show why this or that piece of theology is consistent with evolutionism.

It's your doctrine. You figure it out and let us know.

Cygnus describes how "evolutionism" differs from evolution:

Step 1) make it a parable.
Step 2) deny the inspiredness of bible authors.
Step 3) _____________________________

If that's what your new doctrine of evolutionism says, then it's diametrically opposed to evolution as it actually exists. But you already know that.

 

[Roro1972]

evolution is like someone giving you a fact filled 100 page report and as you read it you find pages missing and some pages have no facts just supposition.