The Literal Bible and Evolution

[dteeuwen]

Hi,

I am researching a book I am writing about the disconnect between belief in the Theory of Evolution and the Literal view of the Bible. I wonder if some of you would answer some questions I will provide below. Unless I don't understand something I won't bother following up on a response, so this isn't some kind of troll or anything.

The questions are:

1. What does a literal view of the Bible mean to you?

2. What does evolution mean to you?

3. Do you think evolution and the Bible are incompatible and why or why not?

4. What do you think holds some Christians back from accepting Evolution as fact?

5. What do think holds some believers in Evolution back from believing in the Bible?

Thanks for answering.

As for myself, I am a writer in my 30's who has grown up in the Mainline Churches of Christ, a group which takes the Literal view of the Bible fairly seriously. I still attend and am raising my family in the church.

Thanks,

Dave T

 

[inhopeofglory]

1. To read, understand, and accept the words of Scripture as they were intended to be understood. Narrative is to be accepted and understood as narrative (e.g. Genesis 1!), apocalyptic prophecy is to be accepted and interpreted as such (i.e. pictures illustrating reality, as per e.g. Daniel 2), and so on.

2. Mutations + natural selection + time = man.

3. They are absolutely incompatible. The Bible is clear that God made the universe in six literal days. Exodus 20:11: "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." Evolutionary theory is contrary to the Scriptures, which state very clearly that death came through sin, and that sin was introduced into the world through Adam, the first man. Romans 5:12: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—" Evolution, on the other hand, requires millions of years of death and suffering before Adam in order for God to produce mankind.

4. They know their Bible, and they're informed concerning observable, repeatable science.

5. The same thing that holds them back from believing the Gospel - sin, especially pride, and deception. If you mean Christian believers in Evolution, one of two things, usually, or a combination of both. Firstly, Biblical illiteracy - many Christians simply don't know what the Bible actually says on the matter. Secondly, ignorance of observed, repeatable science - which always supports the Scriptures - combined with an altogether too high opinion of "scientists" who simply state Evolution as fact, when it isn't. Pride has a lot to do with it, too. Many aren't willing to be seen to be challenging what the world considers to be "obvious" and/or hold to a belief the world considers ridiculous.

 

[follower of Christ]

1. What does a literal view of the Bible mean to you?

It means I spend my life learning where it is meant literally and where its not.

2. What does evolution mean to you?

It means fallible man sees the things God created and misinterprets it.

3. Do you think evolution and the Bible are incompatible and why or why not?

Not in the least.
Because the timeframes simply arent compatible.
Too much compromising of what scripture actually SAYS to make them compatible.

4. What do you think holds some Christians back from accepting Evolution as fact?

Trusting what the Creator says about it all over what fallible men believe who werent there to know how it happened.

5. What do think holds some believers in Evolution back from believing in the Bible?

The need to 'fit in'.

 

[seekandlisten]

The questions are:

1. What does a literal view of the Bible mean to you?

2. What does evolution mean to you?

3. Do you think evolution and the Bible are incompatible and why or why not?

4. What do you think holds some Christians back from accepting Evolution as fact?

5. What do think holds some believers in Evolution back from believing in the Bible?

1. Taking the bible literally word for word as to its meanings without looking deeper.

2. The scientific explanation for how life has gotten to where it is today.

3. No they are not compatible. The bible is not a science book and evolution has nothing to do with religion.

4. A belief in a literal six day creation.

5. Scientific evidence.

 

[veteran]

The questions are:

1. What does a literal view of the Bible mean to you?

You sound sincere, so I'll be sincere, though there may be a lot you or others won't understand in my answers.

ANS: All of God's Word is literal Truth. Some just have a problem recognizing how Bible expressions and analogy (parable) point to Truths. They often confuse the objects in the analogy or expression with the Truth. That's irony, because the reason God gives Biblical expressions, idioms, and parables to point to His Truth is so as to make the Truth easier... to understand, not more difficult.

2. What does evolution mean to you?

Only that it is a doctrine of confusion away from Truth. In Romans 1:19-20 and Hebrews 11:3, we are told that the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Science's discovery of the properties of material matter agrees with that declaration. That material matter cannot be created nor destroyed, but only change its form is an established law of physics.

This is why the theories of evolution must stop with the idea of the origin of material matter. Evolution does not assume that something can come from nothing. It assumes a change between existing things. Yet evolutionists continually denouce the possibility of a Creator, which is to also deny a Creator behind the origin of material matter. They overstep their own bounds with denying the possibility of an Invisible Creator behind the origin of material matter, showing that evolution theory does not intend to prove everything it believes, but more determined to push its own agendas, which one of those agendas is the denial of The Creator.

3. Do you think evolution and the Bible are incompatible and why or why not?

In college biology, the evolution theory teaches that over a period of millions or billions of years, a protozoa organism in water became a man. Yet the earth's strata layers show evidence for life springing up, then being destroyed, and later life forms coming about again in a later strata layer. That does not disagree with God's Word, for in the Hebrew of Genesis 1, this earth is actually very ancient, even to the time back when Satan rebelled against God and drew one third of the angels into rebellion with him. There have actually been two world-wide floods upon this earth per God's Word. The first one destroyed that time of old when Satan first rebelled.

So the layers of earth strata and ancient fossil records scientists and evolutionists form their theories from does exist. The problem is with their lack of understanding in God's Word of how that evidence came to exist, and what it reveals about the real history this earth has gone through. When the fossil records show the existence of dinosaurs, and then their being wiped out never to appear on earth again, and existence of vegetation even at the earth's poles at one time, evolutionists because of their denial of God's existence are then forced to come up with other ideas to explain the evidence God left for man to discover. Many of my fellow-believers on Christ also have a problem understanding this.

4. What do you think holds some Christians back from accepting Evolution as fact?

Lack of actual evidence of evolution's proposed changes from a protozoa organism to a man. An adaptation to one's environment is not proof of evolution's theories on the origin of species. Can evolutionists prove that material matter came from itself? No. But God's Word can account for it.

5. What do think holds some believers in Evolution back from believing in the Bible?

With new discoveries like DNA research and the complexities of this world and the things in it, lot of scientists today are turning away from theories of evolution, because the existing evidence points to one of intelligent design, and not Chaos theory. But those who still desire to hold to the agendas of evolution, who also deny the possiblity of intelligent design, and some of which have been caught falsifying their proposed evidence for evolution, who also strongly deny the existence of a Creator, reveal their thinking and heart is where? There's more evidence to believe in an intelligent Creator than not to believe. When one refuses the obvious, what is that called in God's Word? Rebellion. There's your answer.

 

[Physicist]

5. What do think holds some believers in Evolution back from believing in the Bible?

With new discoveries like DNA research and the complexities of this world and the things in it, lot of scientists today are turning away from theories of evolution, because the existing evidence points to one of intelligent design, and not Chaos theory. But those who still desire to hold to the agendas of evolution, who also deny the possiblity of intelligent design, and some of which have been caught falsifying their proposed evidence for evolution, who also strongly deny the existence of a Creator, reveal their thinking and heart is where? There's more evidence to believe in an intelligent Creator than not to believe. When one refuses the obvious, what is that called in God's Word? Rebellion. There's your answer.

Pardon my insertion here, but as practicing scientist. I would like to correct some misconceptions in the above paragraph.

The Theory of Natural Selection, first proposed by Darwin over a century ago, remains the bedrock for modern biology as the best explanation for the observed evolution of species on this planet. DNA evidence supports the evidence already found in the fossil record for Darwin's Theory.

Intelligent Design is not an accepted scientific theory. The very few scientifically trained individuals who espouse it do so for religious, not scientific reasons. A simple visit to the biology section of your library, or discussion with the Biology Department chair of any reputable University will confirm these statements.

 

[follower of Christ]

ANS: All of God's Word is literal Truth. Some just have a problem recognizing how Bible expressions and analogy (parable) point to Truths. They often confuse the objects in the analogy or expression with the Truth. That's irony, because the reason God gives Biblical expressions, idioms, and parables to point to His Truth is so as to make the Truth easier... to understand, not more difficult.

eh, I dont want to derail the thread or anything, but this isnt what Jesus actually says about the reason for parables....

Jesus spoke to the Jews in parables not to enlighten them, but because the secrets of heaven were not given to them, but to the elect.

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
(Matthew 13:10-13 KJV)

and

And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive;
and hearing they may hear, and not understand;
lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
(Mark 4:10-12 KJV)

We see this is the case when Jesus own disciples didnt understand one of His parables, so He took them aside to explain it in plain wording so they could.

And He said to them, "Do you not know this parable? How then will you know all the parables? The sower sows the word. And these are the seeds beside the road where the word is sown, and whenever they hear, Satan comes immediately and takes away the word which was sown in their hearts. And these are similarly the seeds being sown on stony ground which, whenever they hear the word, immediately they receive it with joy; and they have no root in themselves, but are shortlived. Afterward, when trials or persecution arise because of the word, immediately they fall away. And these are the seeds being sown in the thorns; they are the ones who are hearing the word, and the anxieties of this age, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things coming in choke out the word, and it becomes fruitless. And these are the seeds sown on good ground, such as who hear the word and welcome it, and bear fruit: some thirty fold, some sixty, and some a hundred."
(Mark 4:13-20 EMTV)

 

[follower of Christ]

Intelligent Design is not an accepted scientific theory. The very few scientifically trained individuals who espouse it do so for religious, not scientific reasons. A simple visit to the biology section of your library, or discussion with the Biology Department chair of any reputable University will confirm these statements.

No need
I think most of us here would concur that if a scientist believes in ID that its for religious reasons ;)
.

 

[crux]

The Bible is clear that God made the universe in six literal days.

On this point I would like to make an observation that modern physics absolutely allows for six days to pass in one frame of reference while billions of years pass in another. Time isn't what you think it is, nor do I believe God is neccessarily constrained by time. In fact, I suggest that time is a peculiarity of creation, and not something that applies to God.

The earth was without form and void when the "Day"s started and I believe Sol had not been created yet, also I do not see the rotational speed of the earth which is without form and void listed, it is variable, what was the mass of the earth of that time, and what masses were around it, and how did they affect time?

What I suggest here is that it is unneccessary to stumble over six days, as there are many possibilities wrapped up in the text, and none of them critical to it's message of who God or our relationship to him other than HE is the absolute truth and creator, and we are his creation made that we might know him and have a relationship with him. What fruit then is it to beat people up over a theory six 24 hour periods as measured by the time we experience locally today?

 

[wavy]

4. They know their Bible, and they're informed concerning observable, repeatable science.

You can't be serious...


Finis,
Eric

 

[hogarm]

All cultures and peoples have a creation myth. What makes the Hebrew myth any better than the others?
The Mayan myth is more interesting. So is the Egyptian.
The modern Darwin/Einstein/Big Bang myth seems more plausible.

 

[ChevyRodeo]

I think one of the following is possible. Either A. the world is 6 billions years old and the 6 days of creation are more metaphorical then literal with great spans of time between each day. B. When God made the universe it was created as if it had seemingly always existed or that it was very very very relatively old. The need for it to be created old or rather having always existed goes in hand with God making the universe self functioning, meaning its on a cycle set by God and does not need his command or attention to function on course. With B the earth would be 7,000 years old on our scale of time but perhaps appear to be much older since God's scale of time may be different by nature or the creation of the universe was something existing outside of linear time ( like watching the 1st 30 minutes of a movie in fast forward on your DVD player)

 

[veteran]

The Theory of Natural Selection, first proposed by Darwin over a century ago, remains the bedrock for modern biology as the best explanation for the observed evolution of species on this planet. DNA evidence supports the evidence already found in the fossil record for Darwin's Theory.

Intelligent Design is not an accepted scientific theory. The very few scientifically trained individuals who espouse it do so for religious, not scientific reasons. A simple visit to the biology section of your library, or discussion with the Biology Department chair of any reputable University will confirm these statements.

Such theories of natural selection are based upon 'chance' in order for changes to come together to produce a specie. Yet modern DNA research reveals a complex operation of such astronomical portions, it makes the odds of natural selection being responsible for the origin of species to also be astronomical. One need not be a chair in some university Biology department to understand that.

 

[ChevyRodeo]

If a herd of animals move to a cold region and start growing thicker hair, I can understand that.

If a group of animals die out because they lack the best abilities, i can understand that.

If a group of animals get small in size due to some type of domestication, i can understand that


But I will never believe that the complexity of man today cam from a single celled organism from a bubbling ooze in the ground unless directly controlled by God.


I don't follow evolution but I do natural selection. That is to same, I dont think we all came from bacteria over the course of 4 billion years.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

1. What does a literal view of the Bible mean to you?

2. What does evolution mean to you?

3. Do you think evolution and the Bible are incompatible and why or why not?

4. What do you think holds some Christians back from accepting Evolution as fact?

5. What do think holds some believers in Evolution back from believing in the Bible?

1. I'm an Agnostic Atheist so not much lol

2. Evolution is the explanation of how diversity and complex life arises from primitive life, it is NOT the explanation of the origin of life.

3. Not if you ignore all the parts where God says he snapped his fingers. The Bible is entirely scientifically correct if you ignore all the parts where it's wrong.

4. For some people they are locked into a bubble so strong that they refuse outright fact. A literal view of the Bible is also helpful. Ignorance; studies have shown that if you only include those who actually know what evolution is there is a majority who acknowledge it.

5. Most acknowledgers of evolution are believers, so this question is flawed. If you mean why Atheists don't believe in the Bible then it's usually because there's no evidence and therefore belief is just as unjustified as belief in the Quran or Russel's Teapot.

Wow you guys are really misinformed about people's motives for acknowledging evolution. I don't accept it because I want to sin or 'fit in', I accept it because there's a mountain of tangible evidence that points directly towards it and no discovery we have made since has contradicted it, in fact almost all of them have provided evidence FOR it (See tectonic plates and the such). I don't know a single acknowledger of evolution who does so because they want to sin or fit in, and I know a LOT of them.

If you think I'm an Atheist because I want to sin and hate God then you're an idiot. If I know God is real then rebelling against him will only get me horribly tortured for all eternity (like around 75% of those alive depending on which denomination is real). I don't sin anyway lol, the only sin I actually commit is rebelling against God. So you're saying that I rebel against God so I can rebel against God? The ignorance of some people amazes me.



Hope this helped, good luck writing your book man.How many pages?

 

[ChevyRodeo]

As Christians we must be open to science and see how it reflects how God has made us.

If science has 100% proof of something, then that is most likely how God did something.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

As Christians we must be open to science and see how it reflects how God has made us.

If science has 100% proof of something, then that is most likely how God did something.

Finally, an open minded person. I don't have a problem with this way of thinking, if you want to believe in God as long as you don't force it on me (See Fox News) then I'm fine with it.

The problem with this is God supposedly said stuff in direct contradiction to what Science is telling us, and who knows the Devil could have placed all this evidence here to lure us away from God.

See my point? That's why it's not theologically bankrupt to reject Science.

 

[Physicist]

Mathematical physics

The Theory of Natural Selection, first proposed by Darwin over a century ago, remains the bedrock for modern biology as the best explanation for the observed evolution of species on this planet. DNA evidence supports the evidence already found in the fossil record for Darwin's Theory.

Intelligent Design is not an accepted scientific theory. The very few scientifically trained individuals who espouse it do so for religious, not scientific reasons. A simple visit to the biology section of your library, or discussion with the Biology Department chair of any reputable University will confirm these statements.

Such theories of natural selection are based upon 'chance' in order for changes to come together to produce a specie. Yet modern DNA research reveals a complex operation of such astronomical portions, it makes the odds of natural selection being responsible for the origin of species to also be astronomical. One need not be a chair in some university Biology department to understand that.

While I am not a biologist, I have taught probability theory and can therefore claim some expertise in disagreeing with your above statement.

First, I should probably point out that ambiogenesis is not part of the evolution of species, explained by Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, but rather a separate, and much less mature field of scientific study.

THe theory of natural selection is well established as a scientific theory, both by the fossil record and DNA studies. Non-scientists often fail to understand the mathematical power that natural selection has so I use the following example. Suppose you asked me to guess a number between 1 and a million. I would have to make a lot of guesses. On average it would take me 500,000 tries to hit the right answer. Now, let me have a selection rule analogous to natural selection. After each guess, tell me if I am over or under the right answer. I will get the right answer in less than 20 guesses.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

Re: Mathematical physics

The Theory of Natural Selection, first proposed by Darwin over a century ago, remains the bedrock for modern biology as the best explanation for the observed evolution of species on this planet. DNA evidence supports the evidence already found in the fossil record for Darwin's Theory.

Intelligent Design is not an accepted scientific theory. The very few scientifically trained individuals who espouse it do so for religious, not scientific reasons. A simple visit to the biology section of your library, or discussion with the Biology Department chair of any reputable University will confirm these statements.

Such theories of natural selection are based upon 'chance' in order for changes to come together to produce a specie. Yet modern DNA research reveals a complex operation of such astronomical portions, it makes the odds of natural selection being responsible for the origin of species to also be astronomical. One need not be a chair in some university Biology department to understand that.

While I am not a biologist, I have taught probability theory and can therefore claim some expertise in disagreeing with your above statement.

First, I should probably point out that ambiogenesis is not part of the evolution of species, explained by Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, but rather a separate, and much less mature field of scientific study.

THe theory of natural selection is well established as a scientific theory, both by the fossil record and DNA studies. Non-scientists often fail to understand the mathematical power that natural selection has so I use the following example. Suppose you asked me to guess a number between 1 and a million. I would have to make a lot of guesses. On average it would take me 500,000 tries to hit the right answer. Now, let me have a selection rule analogous to natural selection. After each guess, tell me if I am over or under the right answer. I will get the right answer in less than 20 guesses.

Ahh, reasonable Christians, gotta love it.

 

[elijah23]

Science is a work in progress, it seems to me. Today scientists tell you one thing and tomorrow they tell you the exact opposite thing. I don’t know if evolution is true or not.

By the way, twice you capitalized “evolution.†That isn’t necessary, is it?