Is evolution Compatible with the Bible?

[waveslider]

If the Earth fell to a Telestial state with Adam and Eve, then that would mean that it was previously at a higher state, like Terrestrial. I would think that the Terrestrial laws would be different than Telestial laws, of which science has been studying, so who's to say that there aren't a different set of physics and science going on previous to Adam and Eve, than what Telestial science even knows about? While I agree that it is possible that God may have manipulated a form of Evolution, I also think He may have used a more efficient means of creation as well... one that we can't imagine in our fallen Telestial state. Just my two cents worth anyway.

[cinepro]

3 minutes ago, waveslider said:

If the Earth fell to a Telestial state with Adam and Eve, then that would mean that it was previously at a higher state, like Terrestrial. I would think that the Terrestrial laws would be different than Telestial laws, of which science has been studying, so who's to say that there aren't a different set of physics and science going on previous to Adam and Eve, than what Telestial science even knows about? While I agree that it is possible that God may have manipulated a form of Evolution, I also think He may have used a more efficient means of creation as well... one that we can't imagine in our fallen Telestial state. Just my two cents worth anyway.

While that's possible, I think the problem is that all the science looks a lot like it would if the planet were always in a telestial state from day one, with no noticeable break in that situation at any point. 

The "Terrestrial Creation Theory" is a theory in search of a reason to exist beyond the LDS and Christian desire for it to be real.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

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.

 

 

Most biblical scholars believe he lived and  was crucified by the Romans but I think it a stretch to say most agree he was resurrected. 

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by Teancum

[waveslider]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

While that's possible, I think the problem is that all the science looks a lot like it would if the planet were always in a telestial state from day one, with no noticeable break in that situation at any point. 

The "Terrestrial Creation Theory" is a theory in search of a reason to exist beyond the LDS and Christian desire for it to be real.

I do think that Telestial science has it's limitations, for example when science is confronted with how a black hole acts, the regular rules of quantum physics no longer apply properly. That said, I am not ruling out Evolution as being used by God to have created everything, only that there very well may have been some other means that we can't even begin to quantify into science as we know it, even though we try to fit all the data that we do have into the Theory of Evolution.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, snowflake said:

Can you explain what you mean by "pre-biblical"? Thanks.

More than about 6000 BC.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, mnn727 said:

No thinking person could possibly believe there was no death before Adam.

I disagree, both with the "thinking person" false attribution and with the idea of death on earth before Adam.

When the word of God comes in conflict with science I shall choose the word of God.  Just because science hasn't been able to explain how God did something doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Whereas God can certainly explain how he did everything using scientific law when he so chooses.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The simple answer is that there are no religions that are compatible with any known science.

All religions, except the LDS faith, which is a naturalistic belief system in which God is a glorified man, and in which God uses natural law, rather than supernatural means of accomplishing anything.  The LDS faith is fully compatible with science and humanism.

11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

Folkways and folk beliefs are often quite wrong, even today, but that has nothing to do with the basis of true religion.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, snowflake said:

........................................................

............  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.

According to the Brethren, modern man was brought to Earth fully formed, and he was placed in the Garden of Eden, which most scholars consider a temple precinct.  There a ritual was conducted (the same ritual we still practice today) and covenants were made.  That began the march of modern history, even though it was preceded by billions of years of formative work on the Earth -- including pre-Adamites, who become part of that same covenant-making which took place in the Garden.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours 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.

Often called the Primeval History, Gen 1 -11 is nonetheless not a history or science text and makes no pretense of being so.  It is a compilation of traditional ritual texts which form the basis of the people of Israel.  Other peoples in the ancient Near East had similar compilations, which they used in their sacred rites. 

[BCSpace]

12 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.

The Bible refers to the Book of Mormon.  The Book of Mormon contains 2 Nephi 2:22.  2 Nephi 2:22 tells us that the state of no death began when the creative period was over.

Check and mate.

[snowflake]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Often called the Primeval History, Gen 1 -11 is nonetheless not a history or science text and makes no pretense of being so.  It is a compilation of traditional ritual texts which form the basis of the people of Israel.  Other peoples in the ancient Near East had similar compilations, which they used in their sacred rites. 

I would disagree. If we are to assume the Bible is the word of God (most LDS would accept this statement), then the Genesis account is a detailed description of creation, the fall and the flood. Genesis 7 has the most detailed timeline in all of the Bible. Where did you get the idea that it is not a history? As posted earlier, Christ himself speaks of Noah and the Flood as literal events.

[snowflake]

7 hours ago, BCSpace said:

The Bible refers to the Book of Mormon.  The Book of Mormon contains 2 Nephi 2:22.  2 Nephi 2:22 tells us that the state of no death began when the creative period was over.

Check and mate.

Not following you here, please explain your check and mate.  I would agree that sin and death entered the world after  the fall.

[snowflake]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

In other words if the Bible really doesn't mean what it says. 

I like the bible because I can interpret it however I want, and if there are parts I don't like I just say it has been corrupted. (this is my attempt at sarcasm).

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

In other words if the Bible really doesn't mean what it says. 

The Bible can be interpreted many different ways. But literalism is unlikely to to get at authorial intent, if that's important to you. 

[snowflake]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

According to the Brethren, modern man was brought to Earth fully formed, and he was placed in the Garden of Eden, which most scholars consider a temple precinct.  There a ritual was conducted (the same ritual we still practice today) and covenants were made.  That began the march of modern history, even though it was preceded by billions of years of formative work on the Earth -- including pre-Adamites, who become part of that same covenant-making which took place in the Garden.

When or where was this revealed? Did Joseph come up with this take that the earth is billions of years old or which Prophet commented on it?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

I would disagree. If we are to assume the Bible is the word of God (most LDS would accept this statement), then the Genesis account is a detailed description of creation, the fall and the flood. Genesis 7 has the most detailed timeline in all of the Bible. Where did you get the idea that it is not a history? As posted earlier, Christ himself speaks of Noah and the Flood as literal events.

You miss the point.  Nowhere in the Primeval History do we find a history or science text.  I know of no scholar who says that it is a science or history text.  Where did you get the idea that they are examples of historiography?  Next you'll be claiming that the LDS temple endowment is a history text.  Historical events can indeed be recounted within a ritual text, but that does not make it a history text.  You are confused about the various genres of literature, and you no doubt do not understand the various figurative symbols used within that text.  The Brethren, for example, make it abundantly clear that Eve was not in fact formed from the rib of man.  According to them, that is figurative.  As to the Bible being the Word of God, you need to recall Brigham Young's recognition that it includes within its pages the words of Satan and of good and bad men, as well as the words of God and his son.  It is an anthology created and transmitted by flawed humans.  It is not an inerrant and infallible work.

[mnn727]

20 hours ago, snowflake said:

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.

 

The Bible is neither a historical text nor a science text.

Now, using your beliefs, explain dinosaurs.

[snowflake]

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You miss the point.  Nowhere in the Primeval History do we find a history or science text.  I know of no scholar who says that it is a science or history text.  Where did you get the idea that they are examples of historiography?  Next you'll be claiming that the LDS temple endowment is a history text.  Historical events can indeed be recounted within a ritual text, but that does not make it a history text.  You are confused about the various genres of literature, and you no doubt do not understand the various figurative symbols used within that text.  The Brethren, for example, make it abundantly clear that Eve was not in fact formed from the rib of man.  According to them, that is figurative.  As to the Bible being the Word of God, you need to recall Brigham Young's recognition that it includes within its pages the words of Satan and of good and bad men, as well as the words of God and his son.  It is an anthology created and transmitted by flawed humans.  It is not an inerrant and infallible work.

We have a very detailed genealogy from Christ to David, David to Noah and Noah to Adam. Seems like a historical record to me. A detailed account of creation in 6 days, and a very detailed account of the Flood including dates in Genesis 7, seems like a history to me.  I respectfully disagree, the bible is chocked full of history. We know the Jews existed in the middle east, we know Egypt existed, we know of countless places and artifacts that support the bible as history.....Are you confusing the BOM with the Bible? One of these books is incredibly lacking in any kind of evidence, the other...not so much. The LDS articles of faith confirm my belief that the Bible is the word of God.  

 

[mnn727]

20 hours ago, snowflake said:

 You are incorrect when you say no one who wrote about Jesus knew him. Matthew, Mark, John were direct eyewitnesses.  

 

 

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the books known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

When or where was this revealed? Did Joseph come up with this take that the earth is billions of years old or which Prophet commented on it?

Brigham Young said:
 

Quote

   “Though we have it in history that our Father Adam was made of the dust of this earth and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world and was the chief manager in that operation.
    “He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.”      Journal of Discourses, 3:319.

Brigham also said:

Quote

In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular...whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.  Journal of Discourses 14:116

First Presidency Statement, Nov 1909, 

Quote

   True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.
    ......
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme.   Improvement Era, Nov 1909, 75–81

Spencer W. Kimball said:

Quote

“And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. [The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.]”  “The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, 6/3 (Mar 1976), 70, 
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/03/the-blessings-and-responsibilities-of-womanhood?lang=eng . 

Elder Bruce R. McConkie not only shared this same view, but extended it to include the partaking of fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed. (1966), 242; "Eve and the Fall," in Woman (1988), 60.

Even evangelical christians agree on this approach:  John Walton, “Origins Today - Genesis Through Ancient Eyes,”

Hugh Nibley said:

Quote

The Mormon endowment… is frankly a model, a presentation in figurative terms. As such, it is flexible and adjustable; for example, it may be presented in more languages than one, and in more than one medium of communication. But since it does not attempt to be a picture of reality, but only a model or analogue to show how things work, setting forth the pattern of man’s life on earth with its fundamental whys and wherefores, it does not need to be changed or adapted greatly through the years; it is a remarkably stable model, which makes its comparison with other forms and traditions, including the more ancient ones, quite valid and instructive…   H. W. Nibley, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, 2nd ed., 2005, p. xxix.

 

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, snowflake said:

There we have it,  start with a bacteria, end with a bacteria, case closed, evolution is true.

A different species of bacteria.

[mnn727]

17 hours ago, Teancum said:

In other words if the Bible really doesn't mean what it says. 

Is that a problem?

[mnn727]

17 hours ago, waveslider said:

If the Earth fell to a Telestial state with Adam and Eve, 

If you've been to the Temple, you know that is not the case

[mnn727]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I disagree, both with the "thinking person" false attribution and with the idea of death on earth before Adam.

When the word of God comes in conflict with science I shall choose the word of God.  Just because science hasn't been able to explain how God did something doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Whereas God can certainly explain how he did everything using scientific law when he so chooses.

I stand by my statement as does the Temple endowment presentation

Edited September 14, 2016 by mnn727

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, waveslider said:

I do think that Telestial science has it's limitations, for example when science is confronted with how a black hole acts, the regular rules of quantum physics no longer apply properly. That said, I am not ruling out Evolution as being used by God to have created everything, only that there very well may have been some other means that we can't even begin to quantify into science as we know it, even though we try to fit all the data that we do have into the Theory of Evolution.

There is no sin in claiming "I don't know" something". That is how science progresses, by learning about things we don't know. Yes and no; In science we can not posit any God or Godlike force to make science work. To do so makes it religion. The Theory of Evolution is just the best explanation we have so far of how life changed once it existed.