Is Theistic Evolution Tenable?

[Paul James]

18 hours ago, one.opinion said:

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

"And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water."    Where does it say "dome" here?  Looks like you are reading something into the verse that isn't there.     

I would rather believe what God said in Genesis, than the evolution fairy story made up by atheists who don't want to be morally responsible to a God who might judge them one day.

[one.opinion]

5 minutes ago, Paul James said:

"And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water."    Where does it say "dome" here?  Looks like you are reading something into the verse that isn't there.     

I'm sure we are both aware that English was not the original language of Genesis, so your are making a faulty argument. Scholars agree that the Hebrew word choice indicates a solid dome. It was understood by the ancient Hebrews/Israelites that the was indeed a solid dome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

[Paul James]

10 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I'm sure we are both aware that English was not the original language of Genesis, so your are making a faulty argument. Scholars agree that the Hebrew word choice indicates a solid dome. It was understood by the ancient Hebrews/Israelites that the was indeed a solid dome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

Seeing that the Flood totally changed the structure of the world into what we know of it today, we have no idea of what existed at the time of Adam.  Firstly, when Adam disobeyed God, he brought death and God's curse into the world, in fact, the whole universe changed, and imperfection and decay came into it.  Adam and Eve and all living creatures became mortal, and the ground was cursed making plants have a limited life span, and weeds appeared.  Wild animals stopped being vegetarian and started being carnivorous began killing and eating each other.

There could have been a type of dome of water surrounding the earth at the time of Adam, right through to the Flood, and when the Flood happened, the water from above fell to earth in a cataclysmic torrent, as well as the crust of the earth breaking up, forcing the land into the separate continents and islands, instantly killing all human and land animal life.   The fossil records and discovery of mammoths with vegetable matter still in their mouths gives evidence of instant death through a cataclysmic event.

So, if you want to go with the 18th Century atheistic philosopher's, "You have your interpretation and I have mine", you are welcome to it.  I just believe what the Bible literary says, because God was there and He knows what happened and has presented a true record of it.

 

[one.opinion]

12 minutes ago, Paul James said:

Adam and Eve and all living creatures became mortal

There is nothing in the Bible that confirms that all living creatures were not already mortal.

12 minutes ago, Paul James said:

There could have been a type of dome of water surrounding the earth at the time of Adam

So we've changed our argument from "I don't see a dome in Genesis 1" to "There could have been a dome before the Flood". Could you please select a single argument out of those two contradictory ones?

16 minutes ago, Paul James said:

I just believe what the Bible literary says

Where does the Bible literally say that the solid dome sky was broken by the Flood? You want to tell yourself that you believe what the Bible says literally, but in practice, you have to provide your own explanations to make reality fit that model.

[Paul James]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

There is nothing in the Bible that confirms that all living creatures were not already mortal.

So we've changed our argument from "I don't see a dome in Genesis 1" to "There could have been a dome before the Flood". Could you please select a single argument out of those two contradictory ones?

Where does the Bible literally say that the solid dome sky was broken by the Flood? You want to tell yourself that you believe what the Bible says literally, but in practice, you have to provide your own explanations to make reality fit that model.

If you don't believe that Genesis 1-3 is literal history, written by God who was there, then there is no reason for believing that God actually wrote the rest of the Bible.  In actual fact, the rest of the Bible becomes meaningless, and the death of Jesus on the cross loses its meaning as well.   If one can pick and choose from the Bible what is literal and what is not, when when the Scripture says, "It is appointed unto men once to die and after that the Judgment", one can say that this is not literature but figurative, and that there won't necessarily be a judgment one day where I have to be accountable for the way I have lived my life.  And that "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" is not literal truth at all, but that in order to please God I have to engage in self-improvement so that the god I believe in will love me and accept me.   And that Jesus was just a good man and some kind of Jewish prophet who go into trouble with the authorities and was put to death; and this story about him rising from the dead is just something made up by the disciples.  Also, Paul was a religious teacher who taught doctrine relevant to the people of his day, but we don't have to believe it these days.

My view is that we believe all the history of the Bible as literal history, or none of it.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Paul James said:

If you don't believe that Genesis 1-3 is literal history, written by God who was there, then there is no reason for believing that God actually wrote the rest of the Bible.

Why do you continue to evade direct questions?

1. Where does the Bible claim that the flood broke the solid dome of sky?

2. Why do you accept figurative language in some places, but not others, if we must believe that everything is literal?

3. Does the age of the earth have any impact on the sinfulness of mankind, our need for a Savior, the sacrifice of Jesus, and His triumphant resurrection?

4. Why is the age of the earth a doctrinal issue to you? (Remember, you accept figurative language in places, so the assertion that "we must believe everything literally, or not at all" falls flat)

 

[Paul James]

42 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Why do you continue to evade direct questions?

1. Where does the Bible claim that the flood broke the solid dome of sky?

2. Why do you accept figurative language in some places, but not others, if we must believe that everything is literal?

3. Does the age of the earth have any impact on the sinfulness of mankind, our need for a Savior, the sacrifice of Jesus, and His triumphant resurrection?

4. Why is the age of the earth a doctrinal issue to you? (Remember, you accept figurative language in places, so the assertion that "we must believe everything literally, or not at all" falls flat)

 

The Jesus of the Bible quoted from Genesis as literal history of real events.  If you do not believe in Genesis as literal history, then you are not following the Jesus of the Bible who did.  If you are putting your trust in a Jesus who believes in theistic evolution, and Genesis as just allegory, and that Adam and Eve were created on a pile of the millions of broken bones of dead animals, and that death and sin did not originate with Adam and Eve, as Paul said, then you may be skeptical that Paul was speaking the truth in his letters, because he said, "Be followers of me as I am a follower of Christ".  and obviously followed the Jesus of the Bible, then you cannot be a follower of Paul.  He also said that if a person preached and taught another Jesus other than the one in the Bible, let him be accursed.  So, where does that place you, if the Jesus of the Bible believed Genesis 1-11 as literal history, and did not believe in theistic evolution in any form?

Edited May 3, 2020 by Paul James

[one.opinion]

10 minutes ago, Paul James said:

The Jesus of the Bible quoted from Genesis as literal history of real events.

As I asked in the other thread (I'm confusing myself, keeping up with 2 threads), what do you base this on? To me, Jesus clearly taught about Adam and Eve as historical figures. He did not teach a 144-hour creation period or a young earth.

 

13 minutes ago, Paul James said:

death and sin did not originate with Adam and Eve

The Bible indeed teaches that sin did originate with Adam and Eve (as I've explained in my doctrinal points that you've ignored), but the Bible does not teach that physical death originated with Adam and Eve.

15 minutes ago, Paul James said:

So, where does that place you

It places me under the protection of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ - the perfect sacrifice for my sin, and my deliverer. He has given me new life through the power of His resurrection. I know this with certainty.

18 minutes ago, Paul James said:

if the Jesus of the Bible believed Genesis 1-11 as literal history

Jesus taught about certain people, and a few events from Genesis 1-11 (Adam, Eve, Noah), but this is no different from what I already believe. There is no contradiction here.

You are trying really hard to make the claim that I don't believe in Jesus, or believe in Him in the "right" way, but it's a poor argument.

[Paul James]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

As I asked in the other thread (I'm confusing myself, keeping up with 2 threads), what do you base this on? To me, Jesus clearly taught about Adam and Eve as historical figures. He did not teach a 144-hour creation period or a young earth.

 

The Bible indeed teaches that sin did originate with Adam and Eve (as I've explained in my doctrinal points that you've ignored), but the Bible does not teach that physical death originated with Adam and Eve.

It places me under the protection of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ - the perfect sacrifice for my sin, and my deliverer. He has given me new life through the power of His resurrection. I know this with certainty.

Jesus taught about certain people, and a few events from Genesis 1-11 (Adam, Eve, Noah), but this is no different from what I already believe. There is no contradiction here.

You are trying really hard to make the claim that I don't believe in Jesus, or believe in Him in the "right" way, but it's a poor argument.

If you are believing in theistic evolution as a way that God created the earth, you are believing in an atheistic lie dreamed up by 19th Century atheist evolutionists.

You misquoted me (deliberately?) to say I said that sin did not originate with Adam and Eve.  What I did say was that theistic evolutionist liars said that.

If you don't believe that physical death did not originate from Adam and Eve, and Jesus said it did, then you are saying that the Jesus of the Bible is a liar, and that the Jesus you are trusting in for your salvation is another Jesus.

Well, Satan is an expert at impressions, and he can conjure up a Jesus in your mind that is just an image that conforms to your personal beliefs, instead of the real Jesus of the Bible who accepts the whole of Genesis as literal history from start to finish.

[one.opinion]

14 minutes ago, Paul James said:

You misquoted me (deliberately?) to say I said that sin did not originate with Adam and Eve.  What I did say was that theistic evolutionist liars said that.

I made my quote too short, I apologize. My point was this - The Bible does indeed clearly teach that sin originated with Adam and Eve. The Bible does not clearly teach that physical death originated with Adam and Eve.

14 minutes ago, Paul James said:

If you don't believe that physical death did not originate from Adam and Eve, and Jesus said it did, then you are saying that the Jesus of the Bible is a liar, and that the Jesus you are trusting in for your salvation is another Jesus.

First, produce Biblical evidence of this. Then, we can talk about who is lying.

14 minutes ago, Paul James said:

Well, Satan is an expert at impressions, and he can conjure up a Jesus in your mind that is just an image that conforms to your personal beliefs, instead of the real Jesus of the Bible who accepts the whole of Genesis as literal history from start to finish.

I'm still waiting on Biblical evidence to support what you say about Jesus. I don't think I'll consider responding any further until you have backed up your claims with the Bible. You are beginning to sound like you have a rather twisted view of what the Bible teaches about becoming a new creature in Jesus Christ.

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by one.opinion