snowflake Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 I have been reading a book by Walt Brown titled In the Beginning, Compelling Evidence for the Creation and the Flood. In his book he poses the question, Is evolution compatible with the Bible? pg194. "Many people, although they may not know the term, are theistic evolutionists; that is, they believe God used evolution to create the universe and everything in it. For some, this appears to be an acceptable compromise--belief in evolution and belief in God. The first provides scientific respectability, while the second provides eternal hope and satisfies an inward conviction that there must be a Creator. For these people, evolution is compatible with the Bible." But is it? For me the short answer is No, evolution is not compatible with the bible. "if evolution happened, then death was widespread before man evolved. But if death preceded man and was not a result of Adam's sin, then sin is a fiction. If sin is a fiction, then we have no need for a Savior". pg200. So, is evolution compatible with the Bible? If so, please explain how you come to that conclusion.
Gray Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 (edited) It depends on how you interpret the Bible. If you take the post-Englightnment literalist approach (a gentile heresy, according to Spong), then no, it's not compatible with the Bible. If you understand that the Bible is sacred literature rich with symbolism, then it's quite compatible with evolution. Edited September 15, 2016 by Gray 3
snowflake Posted September 13, 2016 Author Posted September 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: If you understand that the Bible is sacred literature rich with symbolism, then it's quite compatible with evolution. How so? I am assuming that Genesis 1-11 is accurate history involving real people and major events. Every New Testament writer and Jesus cited these foundational events shaping human culture. 1
JLHPROF Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 13 minutes ago, snowflake said: How so? I am assuming that Genesis 1-11 is accurate history involving real people and major events. Every New Testament writer and Jesus cited these foundational events shaping human culture. To doubt the historical nature of Genesis also calls a LOT of Mormonism into question. Many visions and visitations from these OT people were experienced in Mormon history and revelation. To state for instance that Adam didn't exist and is just a symbol of mankind is to say that visions experienced by both Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith are false and future prophecies featuring Adam cannot be fulfilled. Same goes for Noah - Joseph met Noah and he is named as a dispensation head who will be at the Adam-Ondi-Ahman council. And as you say, the NT referred to these people as actual people too. So is evolution compatible with the Bible? Only if the evolutionary process events are considered to be pre-biblical and therefore don't preclude the Biblical events from having happened. 3
thesometimesaint Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 The simple answer is that there are no religions that are compatible with any known science. Individual scientists of course can be religious, and many are, but they can not let their personal religion influence science. IE; The Stone and Bronze Age peoples who wrote the Bible claimed that putting a stick in the ground changes the genetics of livestock. Modern science has other ideas. That is an assumption based on belief not science.
RevTestament Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, snowflake said: I have been reading a book by Walt Brown titled In the Beginning, Compelling Evidence for the Creation and the Flood. In his book he poses the question, Is evolution compatible with the Bible? pg194. "Many people, although they may not know the term, are theistic evolutionists; that is, they believe God used evolution to create the universe and everything in it. For some, this appears to be an acceptable compromise--belief in evolution and belief in God. The first provides scientific respectability, while the second provides eternal hope and satisfies an inward conviction that there must be a Creator. For these people, evolution is compatible with the Bible." But is it? For me the short answer is No, evolution is not compatible with the bible. "if evolution happened, then death was widespread before man evolved. But if death preceded man and was not a result of Adam's sin, then sin is a fiction. If sin is a fiction, then we have no need for a Savior". pg200. So, is evolution compatible with the Bible? If so, please explain how you come to that conclusion. Sure it is. There is evidence of a world-wide flood. Just look on the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea about a mile off Mt Carmel shore. There you find an ancient city under 30 ft of water. This happened all over the world after the last ice age, and the seas apparently rose until about 4000 BC since that city is older than that and is under water. The Genesis flood was probably more local, and the story a parable to teach a lesson, tho can't be sure on that. Certainly the story of Eden is not literal. After Adam we all eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life wasn't literal either but represents Jesus as the Love of God. It is also in the paradise of God in the New Jerusalem. The flaming sword is symbolic too. As the gospel has progressed man should be able to understand this symbolism better, but it doesn't seem so... Do you believe in genetics or is DNA a conspiracy theory against Christians? Does DNA evolve ie mutate? We know it does. We see it in comparing populations. That is "evolution." Has corn "evolved?" Do farmers practice evolution? How about supernumerary nipples? Does God just put them there when women need to make extra milk? Or are they an ancient genetic hangover? man with several supernumerary nipples; women often lactate from them Then there are vestigial tails that children are sometimes born with. How come God put Genesis 2:1-4 in there? Aren't days just one of our days or can God define it differently if it is a "generation?" How many "days" are in the morning of the resurrection? BTW God doesn't say in Genesis that He created the "universe." Every star visible to our naked eyes is in our galaxy. And how many galaxies are there? According to Athanasian Christianity He created them all for this one earth to look at for a 7000 year period. The End....does not compute. BTW doesn't science say that it took MILLIONS and even BILLIONS of years just for that light to reach us? How does that comport with a creation of the universe 6000 years ago? Edited September 13, 2016 by RevTestament 1
bcuzbcuz Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 37 minutes ago, snowflake said: I have been reading a book by Walt Brown titled In the Beginning, Compelling Evidence for the Creation and the Flood. In his book he poses the question, Is evolution compatible with the Bible? pg194. "Many people, although they may not know the term, are theistic evolutionists; that is, they believe God used evolution to create the universe and everything in it. For some, this appears to be an acceptable compromise--belief in evolution and belief in God. The first provides scientific respectability, while the second provides eternal hope and satisfies an inward conviction that there must be a Creator. For these people, evolution is compatible with the Bible." But is it? For me the short answer is No, evolution is not compatible with the bible. "if evolution happened, then death was widespread before man evolved. But if death preceded man and was not a result of Adam's sin, then sin is a fiction. If sin is a fiction, then we have no need for a Savior". pg200. So, is evolution compatible with the Bible? If so, please explain how you come to that conclusion. The Bible talks about creation. Evolution doesn´t. The Bible is a religious text, evolution has nothing to do with religion. Your question, IMO, is comparing apples to bananas. According to the Bible, God brought forth the "creeping thing" on the sixth day. Evolution explains how we´ve ended up with billions and billions of insects of which there are "kinds" of around 350,000 to 400,000 "creeping things" (species) of the order Coleoptera (beetles). All these beetles belong to the same "Order" but are as different from each other as a grape is to a pineapple. We have fossils of beetles from deep within the earth that date back to 300 million years ago. You quote from Brown´s book. He apparently thinks that some Christians can resolve evolution with their belief in the Bible, but then shreds that idea somewhat later, by talking about sin and salvation. Sin and salvation are constructs of religion. If Brown thinks that the theory of evolution contradicts the ideas of sin and salvation that is merely his opinion of trying to use bananas to describe how apples taste. 2
mnn727 Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 (edited) No thinking person could possibly believe there was no death before Adam. What about dinosaurs? Please tell me you're not a 'young earther' Edited September 13, 2016 by mnn727 2
snowflake Posted September 13, 2016 Author Posted September 13, 2016 26 minutes ago, RevTestament said: BTW doesn't science say that it took MILLIONS and even BILLIONS of years just for that light to reach us? How does that comport with a creation of the universe 6000 years ago? So I think you would fall into the "theistic evolutionist" category, correct?
snowflake Posted September 13, 2016 Author Posted September 13, 2016 52 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: So is evolution compatible with the Bible? Only if the evolutionary process events are considered to be pre-biblical and therefore don't preclude the Biblical events from having happened. Can you explain what you mean by "pre-biblical"? Thanks.
Gray Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 1 hour ago, snowflake said: How so? Literalism is a modern way of interpreting scripture, based on the erroneous assumption that modern historical methods existed in the ancient near east. 1 hour ago, snowflake said: I am assuming that Genesis 1-11 is accurate history involving real people and major events. It's not accurate history. It's a sacred mythology, with some real people and events. 1 hour ago, snowflake said: Every New Testament writer and Jesus cited these foundational events shaping human culture. Yes, they cited these foundational myths and added their own. But scripture isn't history. No one who wrote about Moses knew the historical Moses. No one who wrote about Jesus knew the historical Jesus. They were writing and in some cases rewriting stories full of symbolism and allusions to other texts in order to get their message across. That is not to say they were entirely constructed, but it's difficult to tease out the constructed stories from the historical events. Matthew, for instance, must not have believed that Mark's gospel was a literal word for word retelling of actual events, or he wouldn't have changed so much of it. John apparently felt comfortable taking the parable of Lazarus in Luke and turning Lazarus into an actual character in his story. This is not how histories are written, but this IS how ancient people wrote scripture. 4
snowflake Posted September 13, 2016 Author Posted September 13, 2016 8 minutes ago, mnn727 said: No thinking person could possibly believe there was no death before Adam. What about dinosaurs? Please tell me you're not a 'young earther' The bible is clear that there was no death before man's sin. 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— Romans 5:12 In Genesis 3:2121 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
snowflake Posted September 13, 2016 Author Posted September 13, 2016 26 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: You quote from Brown´s book. He apparently thinks that some Christians can resolve evolution with their belief in the Bible, but then shreds that idea somewhat later, by talking about sin and salvation. Sin and salvation are constructs of religion. If Brown thinks that the theory of evolution contradicts the ideas of sin and salvation that is merely his opinion of trying to use bananas to describe how apples taste. No such thing as sin.....OK...how did you come to that conclusion? I am of the opinion that evolution contradicts the ideas of the Bible as well.
snowflake Posted September 13, 2016 Author Posted September 13, 2016 10 minutes ago, Gray said: Literalism is a modern way of interpreting scripture, based on the erroneous assumption that modern historical methods existed in the ancient near east. It's not accurate history. It's a sacred mythology, with some real people and events. Yes, they cited these foundational myths and added their own. But scripture isn't history. No one who wrote about Moses knew the historical Moses. No one who wrote about Jesus knew the historical Jesus. They were writing and in some cases rewriting stories full of symbolism and allusions to other texts in order to get their message across. That is not to say they were entirely constructed, but it's difficult to tease out the constructed stories from the historical events. Matthew, for instance, must not have believed that Mark's gospel was a literal word for word retelling of actual events, or he wouldn't have changed so much of it. John apparently felt comfortable taking the parable of Lazarus in Luke and turning Lazarus into an actual character in his story. This is not how histories are written, but this IS how ancient people wrote scripture. Most biblical scholars agree that Jesus lived, was crucified by the Romans, and rose from the dead. All of the NT was written before 90 A.D., some of Paul's letters were penned around 40 a.d. You are incorrect when you say no one who wrote about Jesus knew him. Matthew, Mark, John were direct eyewitnesses. Luke wrote his books and explained in Luke 1 why he wrote them. Luke: 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Gray Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, snowflake said: Most biblical scholars agree that Jesus lived, was crucified by the Romans, and rose from the dead. Most Biblical scholars will agree to the first two points. Quote All of the NT was written before 90 A.D., Some of it was written in the early 2nd century A.C.E. Quote some of Paul's letters were penned around 40 a.d. The earliest of the Pauline epistles probably come from the early 50s, but Paul never knew Jesus in life. Quote You are incorrect when you say no one who wrote about Jesus knew him. Matthew, Mark, John were direct eyewitnesses. None of the gospels were written by eye witnesses. The authors are anonymous, and the gospels come to us generations after the fact. Quote Luke wrote his books and explained in Luke 1 why he wrote them. Luke: 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. The author is anonymous, but the consensus view is none of the gospel writers were eye witnesses. Edited September 13, 2016 by Gray 1
RevTestament Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 18 minutes ago, snowflake said: So I think you would fall into the "theistic evolutionist" category, correct? I suppose so. I guess that depends on how you define that term. I believe in Adam, Noah, etc, but don't take the stories all too literally. I don't believe there was a literal tree of knowledge of good and evil Eve could walk up to and pick fruit off of. I try to see their spiritual import. What they are trying to teach. As the head of the 1st seal Adam is responsible for teaching man, and ate of the fruit to "save" Eve. If he didn't there would be no progeny - no spiritual children to learn the lesson, and God's work would have ended. The story of Noah teaches us that the ark (of the covenant) carries us through the trial of God, to a new promise on the other side. 8 people are responsible for leading life in that covenant. Let's see the lamb of Revelation has how many eyes? Imagery, repeated themes, symbolism, parables. If you take everything at a typical face value, you won't learn all that much from the Bible. In Daniel 9 a prophetic day is a year. Otherwise the prophecy of the coming of the Messiah was wrong. But since it was 483 years till the Messiah was "cut off" instead of 483 days, it works. BTW the last week was the seven year war by the desolator Rome - it is not some future event like the prophecy gurus try to teach. It is over. Finished. The daily sacrifice ceased when the temple was destroyed in the midst of the week ie 70 AD. So if those "days" are one year as defined elsewhere in scripture, how come the "days" of creation can't be "generations" as defined in Genesis? It's obvious to me they are unless God created light midstream 6000 yrs ago so all those galaxies billions of light years away could give us light....
bcuzbcuz Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 12 minutes ago, snowflake said: No such thing as sin.....OK...how did you come to that conclusion? I am of the opinion that evolution contradicts the ideas of the Bible as well. I didn´t say there is no such thing as sin, only that that word has nothing to do with evolution. Sin is a construct of religion in that religions define certain actions and behaviours as wrong or sinful. Evolution does not define actions or behaviours as "sin". Society can define actions as wrong, unlawful, not right and incorrect. Evolution doesn´t. Society views infanticide as wrong and criminal (some older societies may not have), Religions view infanticide as evil and and a sin. Evolution has no view of the rightness or wrongness of infanticide. But anyone who has raised hamsters may have experienced when the mother hamster eats some or all of her young. Such an action is neither wrong nor sinful, just a huge shock to whichever of your children had the hamster as a pet. Neither society nor religion punishes the hamster mother. Observational science tries to identify and interpret the, for us, strange action. Current ideas are that the mother either identifies the baby as food or foreign material, because some human has handled the baby, or that the mother has a need for nutrition for the other offspring. Either way, the actions are not wrong from an evolutionary POV.
snowflake Posted September 13, 2016 Author Posted September 13, 2016 19 minutes ago, RevTestament said: So if those "days" are one year as defined elsewhere in scripture, how come the "days" of creation can't be "generations" as defined in Genesis? It's obvious to me they are unless God created light midstream 6000 yrs ago so all those galaxies billions of light years away could give us light.... I don't have an answer for you on the prophecies of Daniel, I have been reading about different aspects on that topic. I know that one of the "weeks" are considered seven years, however most of what I have read would tend to think the temple has to be rebuilt before the 70th week of Daniel. If you look at the order of creation according to Genesis, as to when things were created, if the plants were created on day 3 they would not survive for all those years without light. The sun is created on day 4. I don't think the "generations" or "gap" theory can explain the order things are created. In Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Jesus said in Mark 10: that from the beginning of creation he made them male and female, also Jesus talks of Noah and the flood as though it was a literal event. Matthew 24:37-39.
Buckeye Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 If you want to gain a testimony of evolution in under 2 minutes, here's a great place to start: http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/09/stunning-videos-of-evolution-in-action/499136/ 1
Popular Post cinepro Posted September 13, 2016 Popular Post Posted September 13, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, snowflake said: I have been reading a book by Walt Brown titled In the Beginning, Compelling Evidence for the Creation and the Flood. In his book he poses the question, Is evolution compatible with the Bible? pg194. "Many people, although they may not know the term, are theistic evolutionists; that is, they believe God used evolution to create the universe and everything in it. For some, this appears to be an acceptable compromise--belief in evolution and belief in God. The first provides scientific respectability, while the second provides eternal hope and satisfies an inward conviction that there must be a Creator. For these people, evolution is compatible with the Bible." But is it? For me the short answer is No, evolution is not compatible with the bible. "if evolution happened, then death was widespread before man evolved. But if death preceded man and was not a result of Adam's sin, then sin is a fiction. If sin is a fiction, then we have no need for a Savior". pg200. So, is evolution compatible with the Bible? If so, please explain how you come to that conclusion. This topic has been discussed quite a bit here over the years, snowflake, so I would recommend using the "search" function and reading some of the past conversations. But to summarize a basic theory that usually gets put forth, LDS doctrines are "blended" with the theory of evolution by imagining a creation process that involves the "creation" of plants and animals living, breeding, dying and evolving over countless generations until at some point, the bodies for Adam and Eve are born and they are specially blessed and set apart in the Garden of Eden. Presumably, this is a "limited" garden in that the other plants, animals and humanoids (but not "humans") continue to live, breed, die and evolve outside of the garden, unaware of Adam and Eve and their blessed state. Then the Fall happens, and Adam and Eve become mortal and have to rejoin the fallen world from whence they came. Obviously, this creates problems for several LDS doctrines and teachings about the creation and fall (including the spiritual pre-creation, the paradisiacal state of the Earth during the creation, the introduction of physical death to the planet coming from the Fall etc.) And of course, the pre-Adamites themselves. People have been wrestling with this issue for 150 years, and I think most LDS who struggle with the issue are just biding their time until hopefully some Church leaders can get with the program and publicly jettison the fore-mentioned teachings and acknowledge that evolution is probably how it all happened. Or at least stay quiet on the issue long enough (or die soon enough) that we can have plausible deniability. Edited September 13, 2016 by cinepro 5
RevTestament Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 37 minutes ago, snowflake said: I don't have an answer for you on the prophecies of Daniel, I have been reading about different aspects on that topic. I know that one of the "weeks" are considered seven years, however most of what I have read would tend to think the temple has to be rebuilt before the 70th week of Daniel. And God wants the Jews to rebuild that building to start back up animal sacrifices? Doesn't the gospel teach that WE are the temple? We are God's house, and Jesus went to prepare a place for us in His house. The "prophecy gurus" are feeding you a can of nothing. We have temples, but it is to do for others what Jesus did for us. The temple of the New Jerusalem is a spiritual temple for the rebuilding of the house of Israel. Quote If you look at the order of creation according to Genesis, as to when things were created, if the plants were created on day 3 they would not survive for all those years without light. The sun is created on day 4. I don't think the "generations" or "gap" theory can explain the order things are created. In Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Jesus said in Mark 10: that from the beginning of creation he made them male and female, also Jesus talks of Noah and the flood as though it was a literal event. Matthew 24:37-39. Don't know if that is just when the earth's atmosphere cleared enough to see the sun or something else, but there was light from the first day.. how can you have evening and morning without it? Yeah, that one has always been a puzzle. I'm not sure of it's meaning, but otherwise the chronology fits the scientific model quite well. Yes, Jesus says these are the days that shall be like the days of Noah unto Him. So perhaps man will learn the lesson of Noah... to repent before it's too late.
snowflake Posted September 13, 2016 Author Posted September 13, 2016 58 minutes ago, Buckeye said: If you want to gain a testimony of evolution in under 2 minutes, here's a great place to start: http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/09/stunning-videos-of-evolution-in-action/499136/ There we have it, start with a bacteria, end with a bacteria, case closed, evolution is true.
snowflake Posted September 13, 2016 Author Posted September 13, 2016 45 minutes ago, cinepro said: This topic has been discussed quite a bit here over the years, snowflake, so I would recommend using the "search" function and reading some of the past conversations. But to summarize a basic theory that usually gets put forth, LDS doctrines are "blended" with the theory of evolution by imagining a creation process that involves the "creation" of plants and animals living, breeding, dying and evolving over countless generations until at some point, the bodies for Adam and Eve are born and they are specially blessed and set apart in the Garden of Eden. Presumably, this is a "limited" garden in that the other plants, animals and humanoids (but not "humans" continue to live, breed, die and evolve outside of the garden, unaware of Adam and Eve and their blessed state. Then the Fall happens, and Adam and Eve become mortal and have to rejoin the fallen world from whence they came. Obviously, this creates problems for several LDS doctrines and teachings about the creation and fall (including the spiritual pre-creation, the paradisiacal state of the Earth during the creation, the introduction of physical death to the planet coming from the Fall etc.) And of course, the pre-Adamites themselves. People have been wrestling with this issue for 150 years, and I think most LDS who struggle with the issue are just biding their time until hopefully some Church leaders can get with the program and publicly jettison the fore-mentioned teachings and acknowledge that evolution is probably how it all happened. Or at least stay quiet on the issue long enough (or die soon enough) that we can have plausible deniability. Thank you, I appreciate your take on this topic.
Teancum Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 4 hours ago, snowflake said: I have been reading a book by Walt Brown titled In the Beginning, Compelling Evidence for the Creation and the Flood. In his book he poses the question, Is evolution compatible with the Bible? pg194. "Many people, although they may not know the term, are theistic evolutionists; that is, they believe God used evolution to create the universe and everything in it. For some, this appears to be an acceptable compromise--belief in evolution and belief in God. The first provides scientific respectability, while the second provides eternal hope and satisfies an inward conviction that there must be a Creator. For these people, evolution is compatible with the Bible." But is it? For me the short answer is No, evolution is not compatible with the bible. "if evolution happened, then death was widespread before man evolved. But if death preceded man and was not a result of Adam's sin, then sin is a fiction. If sin is a fiction, then we have no need for a Savior". pg200. So, is evolution compatible with the Bible? If so, please explain how you come to that conclusion. No it's not even though many jump through hoops and perform mental gymnastics to try to make it compatible. For an extensive treatment of this subject I recommend the book Faith vs Fact by Jerry Coyne.
Teancum Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 4 hours ago, Gray said: It depends on how you interpret the Bible. If you take the post-Englightnment literalist approach (a heresy, according to Spong), then no, it's not compatible with the Bible. If you understand that the Bible is sacred literature rich with symbolism, then it's quite compatible with evolution. In other words if the Bible really doesn't mean what it says.
Recommended Posts