Is evolution compatible with the Bible?

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by Glark, Oct 30, 2017.

  1. Glark Well-Known Member
    Glark

    Member

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Theology:
    Catholic
    The question for Scripture is whether it can be reconciled with billions of years of evolution - which presupposes an old earth. Discussing the "evidence" (eg, the fossil and geological records) that has led to the conclusion of billions of years of evolution and an old earth is irrelevant to the topic.

    Incidentally, an old earth is possible in my literal interpretation of Genesis 1, as it seems that "the heavens and earth" (v.1) were created before the "light" that marks the beginning of Day 1 (v.3). So there is no need to torture the obvious exegesis (Ie, six literal days) to accommodate an old earth.

    No, it's actually more like ... it's easily the most reasonalbe interpretation of the texts. It is for this reason that the vast majority of early Church Fathers believed in a literal interpretation (it also explains why thesitic evolutions love to selectively cite Augustine on this matter - he was of the very few ECFs who was open to a non-literal interpreatation).

    Perhaps a theistic evolutionist like yourself can explain how Gen 2:7 can be interpreted in such a way that Adam evolved from a pre-existing creature, when it clearly states that Adam was created from inanimate matter.
     
  2. Mungo is a Verified MemberMungo Well-Known Member
    Mungo

    Site Supporter Member

    Messages:
    466
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Theology:
    Catholic
    The the answer then is yes. If one takes the Genesis story as figurative language, if one considers Peter's comment that "with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day" then there is no need to consider creation as taking six literal 24 hour periods.

    Moreover as I said in my first post "I haven't seen a credible explanation of it [evolution and natural selection] working at a macro level". I haven't ruled out God's intervention

    What! A billions year old earth before the sun shone on it?

    I don't consider it a reasonable interpretation of the text in the light of the geological and fossil evidence.


    theistic evolutionist is your label not mine.
     
  3. TheWordSmith is a Verified MemberTheWordSmith Well-Known Member
    TheWordSmith

    Member

    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Theology:
    Bible Believer

    So you consider it proper exegesis to ignore God’s definition of a day within the passage in Genesis for Peter’s statement?????

    Genesis 1: 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

    2 Peter 2:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.





    Maybe science of our day has misinterpreted said “geological and fossil evidence”.

    I wouldn’t advice interpretation of scripture by science.
     
  4. Mungo is a Verified MemberMungo Well-Known Member
    Mungo

    Site Supporter Member

    Messages:
    466
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Theology:
    Catholic


    In your personal and fallible opinin.



    Maybe the moon really is made of cheese. Maybe the earth is flat.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. TheWordSmith is a Verified MemberTheWordSmith Well-Known Member
    TheWordSmith

    Member

    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Theology:
    Bible Believer
    You have ignored the point for a commentary on my intelligence or motives.

    I can show from scripture the earth is not flat I’ll let you handle the cheese question.

    Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
     
  6. Mungo is a Verified MemberMungo Well-Known Member
    Mungo

    Site Supporter Member

    Messages:
    466
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Theology:
    Catholic

    Just pointed out that you are giving personal interpretations not infallible one.
    Or do you think your interpretations are infallible?



    So the earth is flat disc. Is it supported on four elephants?
     
  7. TheWordSmith is a Verified MemberTheWordSmith Well-Known Member
    TheWordSmith

    Member

    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Theology:
    Bible Believer
    Show me an elephant is scripture and we will talk.:wink:
     
  8. TheWordSmith is a Verified MemberTheWordSmith Well-Known Member
    TheWordSmith

    Member

    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Theology:
    Bible Believer
    A response that doesn't have to deal with the actual text is your only answer ???????? mmmmm
     
  9. Mungo is a Verified MemberMungo Well-Known Member
    Mungo

    Site Supporter Member

    Messages:
    466
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Theology:
    Catholic
    But do you have anything to say?

    ELEPHANT

    The Elephant is nowhere mentioned in the Bible, except perhaps indirectly in one of the names for ivory, which is often spoken of, and was much in use amongst the wealthy. The usual word for ivory is שֵׁן shen, i. e. ‘tooth,’ but in the mention of the precious things obtained by Solomon from Ophir, שֶׁנֶהַבִּים shen-habim is the word for ivory. This word habim is stated to be, like the names for the ape and peacock, of Tamil origin, and to signify ‘elephant’ in the dialect spoken on the coast of Malabar and in Ceylon at the present time. The Sanskrit word for elephant is ibhas, and this is believed to be identical with the old Tamil habba. [See APE, PEACOCK.] Habba is also applied to the elephant in Assyrian inscriptions. The early conquests of the Assyrians in India had enabled them to carry on a great trade in ivory, and from them the Tyrians drew their ivory for the great ivory throne of Solomon. ‘The men of Dedan were thy merchants … they brought thee for a present horns of ivory and ebony’ (Ezek. 28:15, Isa. 21:13). The ‘men of Dedan’ were a tribe of merchant traffickers from the Mesopotamian desert. Nevertheless, Solomon himself obtained some of his ivory direct by sea. The Egyptians also made use of ivory at a very early period, but according to Diodorus Siculus they obtained it from the Ethiopians.
    In 1 Kings 22:39 we read of the ‘ivory house of Ahab.’ Probably the walls were panelled with ivory, like the palace of Menelaus described by Homer (Odyss. iv. 73). Ivory was used for inlaying and veneering beds (Amos 6:4) and other pieces of ornamental furniture, as in the boats of the Phenicians (Ezek. 27:6).
    The first mention of ivory amongst the Jews is in David’s time: ‘All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad’ (Ps. 45:8). ‘Palaces’ here means some sort of boxes, or chests, or ‘arks,’ inlaid and veneered with ivory, in which amongst the rich, robes were stored with perfumes.
    Ivory is only once mentioned in the New Testament, in Rev. 18:12.

    Hart, H. C. (1888). The Animals Mentioned in the Bible (pp. 90–92). London: The Religious Tract Society.

    :smile:
     
  10. TheWordSmith is a Verified MemberTheWordSmith Well-Known Member
    TheWordSmith

    Member

    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Theology:
    Bible Believer
    You should have just stopped here.
     
  11. Mungo is a Verified MemberMungo Well-Known Member
    Mungo

    Site Supporter Member

    Messages:
    466
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Theology:
    Catholic
    And God created the ivory directly to fool us.:sneaky:
     
  12. Glark Well-Known Member
    Glark

    Member

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Theology:
    Catholic
    #44 Glark, Nov 26, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2017
    This is an often-used but weak argument. St. Peter is merely making the point that God exists outside of time.

    In Exodus 20:8-11 Yahweh directly compares six literal days of human labour to the six days of creation. Why would He do this if billions of years of evolution is the truth?

    The geological and fossil record suggests there were previous creations to the "six days" of creation mentioned in Genesis. How God provided sunlight for those earlier creations is anyone's guess. Scientists suggest our sun has a limited life-span - so suns can come and go according to God's creative plan.
     
  13. Mungo is a Verified MemberMungo Well-Known Member
    Mungo

    Site Supporter Member

    Messages:
    466
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Theology:
    Catholic

    Previous creations!!!

    That is pure craziness.
     
  14. Glark Well-Known Member
    Glark

    Member

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Theology:
    Catholic
    #46 Glark, Nov 27, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2017
    Perhaps you're right, but it's no crazier than what theistic evolutionists believe
    ... that soul-less humans can exist
    ... that a race of said soul-less humans evolved from apes and roamed the earth until God injected a soul into one of them - Adam
    ... that after using billions of years of evolution to produce Adam, God creates Eve in an instant
    ... that with the advent of Adam, that race of soul-less humans somehow immediately became extinct.
    ... that a race of humans that existed for hundreds of thousands of years with the same inteligence as Adam never developed metallurgy or writing or science and technology, or even invented the wheel.

    Then there are the abuses of Scripture that theistic evolutionists rely on. For example. Genesis clearly describes how Adam was created from inanimate matter, which rules out evolution.
     
  15. Glark Well-Known Member
    Glark

    Member

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Theology:
    Catholic
    I mean a previous creation (singular). Origen proposed the possibly of multiple creations.
     
  16. Glark Well-Known Member
    Glark

    Member

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Theology:
    Catholic
    I strongly suspect that the cult of Darwinism that dominates the scientfic community has vastly exaggerated the time scales of the geological and fossil records in order to accommodate the theory that microbes evolved into humans.
     

Share This Page