Is Theistic Evolution Tenable?

[one.opinion]

5 minutes ago, Paul James said:

I just believe what is actually stated in Genesis.  I don't try and read anything into it.   Nothing I could say would change your mind on this, and you would find an argument against it whatever I submitted in order to refute what you wrote.  The reason is that you believe what you want to believe.  You understand perfectly well the traditional Christian belief in a literal Genesis that is the basis of the Gospel of Christ, but you don't want to believe it.  You choose to believe in a mythical, or allegorical Genesis and you will defend it to the max.

Maybe you could explain how a literal creation account is the basis for the Gospel of Christ. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and I believe that their literal disobedience and pride brought sin into the world and that all people since that time have needed a Savior provide redemption from their own sins. Is there something fundamentally wrong with what I've explained here? Why does a belief in a 144-hour creation period explain what I've stated any better?

@enoob57 won't explain why he "knows" that Genesis 2:17 could not refer to a spiritual death, rather than a physical one. Do you want to give it a shot?

[enoob57]

34 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Maybe you could explain how a literal creation account is the basis for the Gospel of Christ. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and I believe that their literal disobedience and pride brought sin into the world and that all people since that time have needed a Savior provide redemption from their own sins. Is there something fundamentally wrong with what I've explained here? Why does a belief in a 144-hour creation period explain what I've stated any better?

@enoob57 won't explain why he "knows" that Genesis 2:17 could not refer to a spiritual death, rather than a physical one. Do you want to give it a shot?

Because we have had this conversation before and nothing will turn you from your predetermined mind on this... the moment they ate they began to physically die; they and only they knew the what the fall was really like spiritually and physically as we have all been born into the death....

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, enoob57 said:

Because we have had this conversation before and nothing will turn you from your predetermined mind on this... the moment they ate they began to physically die; they and only they knew the what the fall was really like spiritually and physically as we have all been born into the death....

That is one possible explanation, but it is not any sort of proof. How would make the claim that Genesis 1:27 could NOT refer to a spiritual death, instead of a physical one? You are offering support for your own interpretation, but will not (or cannot) provide any sort of evidence against mine.

[Paul James]

31 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Maybe you could explain how a literal creation account is the basis for the Gospel of Christ. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and I believe that their literal disobedience and pride brought sin into the world and that all people since that time have needed a Savior provide redemption from their own sins. Is there something fundamentally wrong with what I've explained here? Why does a belief in a 144-hour creation period explain what I've stated any better?

@enoob57 won't explain why he "knows" that Genesis 2:17 could not refer to a spiritual death, rather than a physical one. Do you want to give it a shot?

The Hebrew word "yom" used throughout the Old Testament, means "day".  In every place where there is a number or the words "evening" or "morning" attached to it, it means a 24 hour day.  But when the expression "the day of the Lord" is used, there is no such addition, so that doesn't mean a literal 24 hour day.   If creation was not six literal 24 hour days, then the Hebrew word "yom" would not have been used.

Also, the reason for the creation taking 6 days with a rest day on the 7th, was that God was setting up our working week, where he says "for six days you shall labour and on the seventh rest".   If each day of creation was millions of years, then the "six days you shall labour and the seventh rest" would be meaningless, because no one will work for a million year "day".

Also, the order in which the Bible says the components of the world were created is totally different from the theory of evolution. 

The Bible says that the earth existed before the stars, while evolution says the opposite.

The Bible says that earth had a livable atmosphere before the plants and trees were created, while evolution says that the plants and trees created the atmosphere.

The Bible says that birds were created before fish, while evolution says that birds evolved from fish.

The Bible says that reptiles were created before fish, while evolution says that reptile evolved from fish.

Evolution says that the plants survived through pollination by insects, while the Bible says that the plants were created well before insects, and if the plants were there millions of years before insects were created, how did they survive?

Evolution requires animals and other organisms to interbreed and die so they can evolve.  The Bible says that God's creation was "very good", in that it was perfect, and death was not part of that perfection.  It says that death came only through Adam's disobedience.

This is why believing in theistic evolution in which the world was formed over millions of years, actually contradicts the Bible, and therefore is a denial of it, and so doing destroys the gospel of Jesus Christ, because if one doesn't believe in a literal six day creation and in the order the Bible states, then why believe the rest of the Bible, because everything else, including the gospel of Christ loses its meaning, and Christianity becomes just a religion of self-improvement.

[enoob57]

Just now, one.opinion said:

That is one possible explanation, but it is not any sort of proof. How would make the claim that Genesis 1:27 could NOT refer to a spiritual death, instead of a physical one? You are offering support for your own interpretation, but will not (or cannot) provide any sort of evidence against mine.

It was of course both... but the point is physical death was not before or else you have God stating a result of something already in effect.... what would be the point of warning them of that which was already in use? The major theological issue is life which is made in equality with Jesus statement of 'I AM' cannot have death in any form or else life is not life... it the fallacy of yes and no being equally same!

[one.opinion]

6 minutes ago, Paul James said:

The Hebrew word "yom" used throughout the Old Testament, means "day".

There are MANY meanings for the word throughout the Old Testament.

7 minutes ago, Paul James said:

In every place where there is a number or the words "evening" or "morning" attached to it, it means a 24 hour day.

That does not mean that the pattern holds everywhere. If I say that all of the mailboxes on my street are gray, so all mailboxes are gray, would that be correct? Out of curiosity, where else in the Old Testament does this pattern hold true?

10 minutes ago, Paul James said:

If creation was not six literal 24 hour days, then the Hebrew word "yom" would not have been used.

No, there are many other meanings, as you know.

11 minutes ago, Paul James said:

Also, the reason for the creation taking 6 days with a rest day on the 7th, was that God was setting up our working week, where he says "for six days you shall labour and on the seventh rest".   If each day of creation was millions of years, then the "six days you shall labour and the seventh rest" would be meaningless, because no one will work for a million year "day".

Not necessarily. Symbolism is very important throughout the Bible.

12 minutes ago, Paul James said:

The Bible says that God's creation was "very good", in that it was perfect, and death was not part of that perfection.  It says that death came only through Adam's disobedience.

There are Hebrew words that could have been used to convey "perfect", but a different word was used. I would suggest that if God wanted the Bible to say "perfect", the human author would have used a different word.

13 minutes ago, Paul James said:

It says that death came only through Adam's disobedience.

I don't think a physical death interpretation matches as well as a spiritual death interpretation. God told Adam that he would eat on the day that he ate the fruit, yet he didn't die physically. Additionally, Paul's references to Adam are consistently from a spiritual view, comparing him to the Second Adam, Jesus Christ.

There is no indication in the scripture that no physical death occurred before Adam's sin.

1 hour ago, Paul James said:

This is why believing in theistic evolution in which the world was formed over millions of years, actually contradicts the Bible, and therefore is a denial of it

There is no reason why God creating over millions of years, rather than 144 hour contradicts or denies the message of the Bible, itself. It only contradicts certain interpretations of the Bible.

 

1 hour ago, Paul James said:

because if one doesn't believe in a literal six day creation and in the order the Bible states, then why believe the rest of the Bible, because everything else, including the gospel of Christ loses its meaning, and Christianity becomes just a religion of self-improvement.

This is not true. This is like saying "if you don't believe what the Bible says about the sun orbiting the earth, then everything else loses its meaning". There is abundant reason to believe that the creation account is not intended to be a historical description of events, but an establishment of God as Creator and Sustainer of all the universe.

 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

what would be the point of warning them of that which was already in use?

That should be obvious. The warning was for the spiritual separation they would experience if they chose their own way - which was exactly what happened.

 

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

The major theological issue is life which is made in equality with Jesus

No, life is not made in equality with Jesus. I have no idea where you would have possibly gotten that idea, but it certainly wasn't from the Bible. Creation does not match the Creator.

[Paul James]

35 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

There are MANY meanings for the word throughout the Old Testament.

That does not mean that the pattern holds everywhere. If I say that all of the mailboxes on my street are gray, so all mailboxes are gray, would that be correct? Out of curiosity, where else in the Old Testament does this pattern hold true?

No, there are many other meanings, as you know.

Not necessarily. Symbolism is very important throughout the Bible.

There are Hebrew words that could have been used to convey "perfect", but a different word was used. I would suggest that if God wanted the Bible to say "perfect", the human author would have used a different word.

I don't think a physical death interpretation matches as well as a spiritual death interpretation. God told Adam that he would eat on the day that he ate the fruit, yet he didn't die physically. Additionally, Paul's references to Adam are consistently from a spiritual view, comparing him to the Second Adam, Jesus Christ.

There is no indication in the scripture that no physical death occurred before Adam's sin.

There is no reason why God creating over millions of years, rather than 144 hour contradicts or denies the message of the Bible, itself. It only contradicts certain interpretations of the Bible.

 

This is not true. This is like saying "if you don't believe what the Bible says about the sun orbiting the earth, then everything else loses its meaning". There is abundant reason to believe that the creation account is not intended to be a historical description of events, but an establishment of God as Creator and Sustainer of all the universe.

 

Of course, none of us were there when the world was created, so any theory has to be mere guesswork.  But God was there, and He said exactly how he created the world.  It doesn't need interpretation.  What you are actually saying is that God's Word should be evaluated and interpreted by mortal, finite man, who thinks he can tell God how He created the world.  I see man's arrogance in that.

The fact is, that people don't want to accept that God created the world exactly the way He said He did - in six 24 hour days.  So it is not just interpretation, but a matter of the will -that evolutionists flatly refuse to accept Genesis as literal history, because they want to leave God out of the picture as much as possible, and dream up an image of a God they feel comfortable with.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Paul James said:

What you are actually saying is that God's Word should be evaluated and interpreted by mortal, finite man, who thinks he can tell God how He created the world.

Do you believe the sky is a solid dome? If not, why do you believe the description in Genesis 1:6 is not literal?

[enoob57]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That should be obvious. The warning was for the spiritual separation they would experience if they chose their own way - which was exactly what happened.

 

No, life is not made in equality with Jesus. I have no idea where you would have possibly gotten that idea, but it certainly wasn't from the Bible. Creation does not match the Creator.

John 14:6

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
KJV
death has nothing of God in it!