Is Theistic Evolution Tenable?

[Behold]

35 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

 

Am into assume from this latest abrupt jump in argument that you concede that neither Colossians nor John support a literal interpretation of the Genesis timeline?

We can read what the Bible says, but sometimes a better interpretation is not a literal one. For example, people once thought the sun revolves around the earth due to a literal interpretation of scripture.

I am absolutely NOT saying that the Bible doesn’t use the Hebrew “yom”. What I am saying is I do not believe that a literal 6 periods of 24 hours is the best interpretation.

Great - we can agree on a Pre-Adamic world. Could you explain why you don’t know the time frame if you believe in a literal creation period of 6 24-hour days?

Can you prove that God didn't create "creation", in 6 literal days?

Why dont you do that in you next post?

And  verses in the bible, can sometimes be symbolic, allegorical, or Literal....   In the case of "6 days", you also have "one day is as a thousand years, with God"..

So, as i said, you are allowed to be a skeptic, and i have no issue with your skepticism, as long as you are honest and dont pretend that a verse as written, isn't there.

Beyond that, every believer in Yeshua has to study to show yourself approved.

And Colossians 1:16 isn't involved with explaining how long it Took God as Jesus the Word to make it all., its only involved with supporting Jesus as The Word, who is God, and God created it all using His Word. 

Edited March 26, 2020 by Behold

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Behold said:

Can you prove that God didn't create "creation", in 6 literal days?

Obviously, I can’t prove it. God certainly could have created the world in 6 literal days and happened to leave evidence that life evolved over hundreds of millions of years. I simply believe that the evidence God left supports that He really did create over an enormous time span.

I absolutely believe in God as Creator, which I believe is the whole point to the creation account. There is one true God and He is responsible for the creation of all things, culminating in the creation of humanity.

Edited March 26, 2020 by one.opinion

[Behold]

28 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Obviously, I can’t prove it. God certainly could have created the world in 6 literal days and happened to leave evidence that life evolved over hundreds of millions of years. I simply believe that the evidence God left supports that He really did create over an enormous time span.

I absolutely believe in God as Creator, which I believe is the whole point to the creation account. There is one true God and He is responsible for the creation of all things, culminating in the creation of humanity.

And i absolutely agree that you have a God Given right of Freewill to be involved in the pursuit. =  regarding whatever you want to pursue, be it knowledge, or a collection of hand made custom acoustic guitars.

As for myself......im the very same.

Where and when i learned to deeply respect that bible, completely and ultimately, to the point where i can't even define myself as a denomination, but only as a bible believing Christian, is not just because the words in that book changed me from the inside out and are doing it still.    But, also, its because, as i was first being called to teach the NT and become an Evangelist in 1987, God took me into a series of jobs, where i dealt with really hardened bible rejecting and God hating types.  And i discovered that i could be in a small cafeteria with say, 80 of these people, and i would take out my KJV (NT and Psalms/Proverbs) and read it silently  while i was eating, and the entire room would begin to shift and squirm and come under conviction.  And WHY?    It was that LIVING BOOK working on the inside of those people as the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and i saw this happen many many times...

That word, that Bible, is a LIVING BOOK.  It has God's Spirit bonded to every letter found on every page.  When you lift up that book, you are lifting up God.  When you believe that Book, you are Believing God. When you teach that Holy Book, you are teaching GOD.      When you are discounting, disputing, denying, and castigating that book with what you say or write, you are doing the very same to and against God Himself, who inspired that Holy book by His Holy Spirit.

 

 

<B>< 

Edited March 26, 2020 by Behold

[A Christian 1985]

The orthodox Christians escaped the greater error altogether; but, nevertheless gave clear testimony to the influence of the popular belief in their interpretation of the commencing chapter of Genesis. For they made the first verse signify the creation of a confused mass of elements, out of which the heavens and earth were formed during the six days, understanding the next sentence to be a description of this crude matter before God shaped it. And their opinion has descended to our days. But it does not appear to be substantiated by Scripture, as we shall presently see, and the guile of the serpent may be detected in its results. For how great a contest has it provoked between the Church and the World!

 

            For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.

                Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.¹³⁹

 

Today, to be pro‑spiritual and to appreciate the Judeo‑Christian heritage, one must, it seems, be anti‑scientific. This is a common consensus; it is a mirage.¹⁴⁰

 

To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4^th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.

[A Christian 1985]

What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will.

If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will. We should expect that God used a "natural," progressive means of forming man.

If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but sub­stantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two.

 

            Now, in the inspired description or what took place in the beginning, the heaven and earth are not said to have been molded, fashioned, or made out of material, but to have been created (bara). For, whatever may have been the original meaning of the word bara, it seems certain that in this and similar passages it is used for calling into being without the aid of preexisting material. ¹⁴²

            As we have seen, the Scriptural account that God created the heavens out of nothing‑ that at a certain point time and space began whereas they had previously not existed- has been substantiated by the "big bang" theory, which has been verified by concrete, scientific evidence.

 

Lastly, the Hebrew verb used in the account of the six days of restoration means to fashion or prepare out of already existing matter. Such a means implies a process, unlike that of Genesis 1:1. Is this process, illustrated in the account of the six days, an evolutionary one?

 

Perhaps the tale of the Garden of Eden is not mythological in origin; perhaps it is an allegorical rendition of an actual occurrence, a natural, evolutionary phenomenon.¹⁴⁵

 

                The biblical authors had of course no formalized notion of evolution. Unmistakably, however, their description is, in its way, an essentially evolutionary development. ¹⁴⁶

 

And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)

 

Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground.  Throughout the Scriptures, the physical body of man is likened to clay, not just the vague dust of the ground, so that we should expect clay to have played an important part in the evolutionary process that culminated in man.

What does the scientific record say?

 

The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.¹⁴⁹

 

Scientific evidence and Scripture concur!

 

And the name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Gen. 2:14 NASB)

 

 Probably some lines of ... man died out, but it seems likely that a line in the Middle East went on directly to us, Homo sapiens. ¹⁶²

 

Again, scientific evidence and Scripture concur!

 

What is the significance of God breathing into a single man the breath (Hebrew‑spirit) of life and the consequent result of that man then becoming a living soul?

 

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24 NASB)

 

In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath (spirit) of mankind? (Job 12:10)

 

But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding. (Job 32:8)

 

1. According to the scriptures, all living things have a soul, but only man has a spirit.

2. The Hebrew word translated 'breath' may equally be (and is in some other verses) translated as spirit.

 

What I am leading up to is this: man the physical creature evolved, and at a certain point in his evolution he was given a spirit directly by and from God with which he could express God and have the likeness of God. Adam was the first man as we his descendants are, being the first creature to reach the stage of evolution at which God gave him a spirit. This also seems confirmed by the thought of other Scripture (l Cor. 15:45, 47): ... “The first man Adam became a living soul.... The first man is of the earth, earthy:”...

What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls‑ what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. Animals must choose either according to rational thought processes (mind) or according to instinct (emotions).

 

Free will is inevitably associated with intelligence. To do something willful, after all, you ‑have to understand the existence of alternatives and choices among them, and these are attributes of intelligence. ¹⁵³

 

The attainment of free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence. Intelligence requires not only a minimum gross brain size but also a low brain‑to‑body ratio and a high level of "adaptive capacity" neurons. Only Homo sapiens (modern man) meets all three of these requirements.

 

It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection.¹⁶⁷

 

The evolution of intelligence was a consequence of the process of natural selection. Can we thus bring this process under the scrutiny of the physical sciences?

 It was by the process of natural selection, acting on the trait of increasing cranial capacity (and complexity) produced by genetic mutation, that man evolved with an increasing mental ability leading to intelligence sufficient to have a free will. Eventually, a mutation occurred that would, when expressed, reach the point at which man's intellectual powers gave him a free will.

This recessive mutation was spreading itself through the pre-Adamic population as a heterozygote, that is, it was paired with a dominant gene of the pre-­mutation variety. The selective advantage of the mutation ensured such a spreading. Inevitably, two individuals with such heterozygous genes mated and produced the first offspring with both genes being of the recessive mutant variety. When this offspring reached maturity, he was the first one of his species whose intelligence was of a degree sufficient for him to have a free will. This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the pre‑Adamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam's immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the "first man" of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait.

How did God solve this problem?

 

    The sex chromosomes are named, by convention, the X‑chromosome and the Y­-chromosome. Normal human males have 1 X‑chromosome and 1 Y‑chromosome; normal females have 2 X‑chromosomes. ¹⁷⁸

 

And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21‑23)

 

It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring.

 

The sixty‑four dollar question: Who was Cain's wife?

            It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain's wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest) ‑ something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she?

Cain's wife was one of the offspring of Adam's heterozygous contemporaries!

 

If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn't God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit.

                                    

[The Barbarian]

On 3/25/2020 at 8:15 AM, Behold said:

"6 days" is not a mistranslation, or a transliteration.  Its in the Jewish Torah, its it the original Hebrew, its Taught by Jewish Religious Leadership for 4000 + yrs=  that its Literal, and not symbolic or allegorical.

Well, let's take a look...

Other Jews and Christians have long regarded the creation account of Genesis as an allegory - even prior to the development of modern science and the scientific accounts (based on the scientific method) of cosmological, biological and human origins. Notable proponents of allegorical interpretation include the Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo, who in the 4th century, on theological grounds, argued that God created everything in the universe in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain reading of Genesis would require;^[2][3] and the even earlier 1st-century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days or in any determinate amount of time.^[

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

So that's not debatable, unless you chose to ignore historical fact and the testimony of the Bible itself.   You're free to to that, and it won't endanger your salvation unless  you make an idol of your new doctrines.   Otherwise, you are just as much a Christian as anyone who accepts evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

16 hours ago, A Christian 1985 said:

To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus.

Actually, the Roman Catholic church never made geocentrism a doctrine,although there were many Catholics who agreed with Luther and Calvin that the Earth was at the center of the universe and did not move.  Some of them were responsible for the Galileo affair, although it was more due to politics than theology.

Just as Lutherans and Calvinists were never required to believe in Geocentrism, even if Luther and Calvin did.

 

[The Barbarian]

On 3/26/2020 at 6:16 PM, Behold said:

That word, that Bible, is a LIVING BOOK.  It has God's Spirit bonded to every letter found on every page.  When you lift up that book, you are lifting up God. 

No.   God's word is holy and true, but it is not God.  Bibliolatry is a serious error, and an affront to God.

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2020 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

On 3/23/2020 at 9:31 AM, omega2xx said:

You say  Wise listed dozens of papers backing up his facts, but are unwilling to take less time to list some of hem than it took you to  post this message.. 

I've presented you with dozens of them.   You are the spiritual descendant of the geocentrists who refused Galileo's offer to look into his telescope and see for themselves.

On 3/23/2020 at 9:31 AM, omega2xx said:

Since you mentioned Gringich and whale evolution I will offer you another challenge---How can a land animal with no gene for fins and a blowhole produce a sea animal with those traits.

But they do.   The same genes that code for wings on bats and legs on humans, also code for fins on whales.   The same genes that code for nostrils, code for blowholes.   As your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise points out, these are confirmed by transitional forms.

Blowholes...  three stages of a whale in embryonic development.   Notice the nostrils form in the usual mammalian position,and then later move to the top of the head to form a blowhole.   Notice also the limb buds that form like those of most mammals, and then change shape to form flippers.

As you see, Wise is quite correct.   The evidence for the evolution of whales is very good.     On the other hand, you can't post any evidence to support your unbiblical and unscientific case.

 

[Behold]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Well, let's take a look...

Other Jews and Christians have long regarded the creation account of Genesis as an allegory - ....................

 

Finding an exception to try to prove a rule is the best you can do, and its a fail.

Just accept the verses as they are written, and dont waste your  time trying to contradict them.

Edited March 30, 2020 by Behold