Science and the evolution of Christianity - scope for understanding?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bible-Talk on November 5, 2011 at 7:16am

Hi Rita,

thanks for your thoughts. I apologize for the delay in replying.

 

I think that it is interesting what people think about how long God took to create the world and everything in it. I have talked to a few about it and have also been reading articles about other people's views. It seems that it varies from instantaneous to many thousands/millions of years. The age of the cosmos also differs greatly with some believing in terms of thousands of years whilst others believe it to be billions of years old.

The same with man's creation - from instantaneous to thousands of years. 

 

The understanding of the Hebrew word "yom" (day - in the creation account) is also a matter of contention with some believing it to mean a twenty four hour period and others proposing an unspecified period of time.

 

I guess it depends on how much credibility science has in the thinking of people. If people accept that the cosmos is billions of years old then one day (of the creation) could be seen as one generation/long period; if the age of the cosmos is taken to be thousands of years old - people tend to apply the literal 24 hour day time frame.

 

I do not see either consideration as an attempt to prove Gods Word (on this issue) to be erroneous; to me it is about the translation/usage of the Hebrew word "yom" as God intended it. My current appreciation of its translation/use in the creation account is in terms of a long period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amanda on November 5, 2011 at 9:23am

Desmond, I have something for you to consider:

That God used Darwinism to create is not supported by the Bible IMO. Rejecting evolution is not synonymous with rejecting science. I don’t think the Bible says the earth is the center of the Universe either. It does say the earth is a sphere. Could God have used evolution if He had wanted? Yes! If He had I believe He would have written the Bible differently. Describe to me how God used evolution to create Adam and Eve. How does evolution say Adam and Eve would have been created? Then compare that for me to how the Bible says they were created. It says God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and Adam became a living soul. If Adam did not become a living soul until God breathed into his nostrils, then tell me how was he alive before he had nostrils? Human embryos are alive before they form nostrils but according to the Bible Adam was not. The Bible is absolutely true. Right? Now take a look at Eve. How does the Bible say she was created?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bible-Talk on November 5, 2011 at 3:27pm

Hi Amanda - apologies for my late replies.

 

I agree that God did not "use Darwinism" to create. I think that evolution as a tool/process used by God to create man sounds dubious to those who think that God created everything instantly and not over a period of time. The definition of evolution seems to be solely associated with Darwin's version. The scientific definition I understand is more independent.

 

There are a number of articles on how God could have used evolution as a process/tool during the transitional period of human creation from dust (not primates) to flesh and bones. 

 

I want to take a pause here because I would like to consider some of your other points in another one of your posts and also would like to read through other replies.

 

Thanks for your patience.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amanda on November 5, 2011 at 3:57pm

No apology necessary, Desmond.

I think what you are getting at is theistic evolutionism which is a combination of God setting evolution in progress and then guiding it culminating in the creation of man. To believe this view, the Bible's account of creation has to be explained away. It would still involve transforming life forms and death, and even if it did not involve death, I still can't agree with that. Sorry, Brother.

Here is an excerpt from an article by Allan Rosser, called Did God Use Evolution to Create man? This View Creates More Problems than It Solves.

Million-year man from dust?
If the Bible is the God-breathed Word of God, authoritative and correct, then the theistic evolutionist who ‘accepts’ the scriptural account of man’s creation does have to stretch it a little to say that man’s creation from dust just took millions of years through transforming life-forms. If it happened this way, God must have been deceiving us when He said He made man from dust. What prevented Him from telling it like it was?

The fact that death came by one man, Adam (Romans 5:12), is a serious challenge to theistic evolution, as many creatures already would have died in the evolutionary process. The death that came through Adam was two-fold, even as Christ’s death was twofold:

1.physical death and
2.spiritual death—separation from God.
It was from physical death that Jesus rose. Let us not think that this death that Adam brought in was only spiritual. The result of his sin was that he was not allowed to eat of the tree of life. As a result of this, he died physically many years later. Chapter 5 of Genesis tells us ‘And he died …’ some eight times, no doubt to emphasize the consequences of Adam’s sin.

As some degree of apeman, Adam was going to die, so what was the use of God’s warning to Adam, ‘In the day you eat of it, dying you will die’? (literal translation). Did God give Adam the ability to live for ever and then after Adam’s sin take it away?

In Scripture we read ‘for since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead, for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive’ (1 Corinthians 15:22, 23). If Adam was the end of the evolutionary line, then thousands of evolving men had already died, and death did not come by Adam. Chapter 15 also tells of the second Adam, who was Christ. If the first Adam ‘ex–apeman’ was as real a person as the second Adam, then there came a day when God must have said: ‘You are of this moment man, Adam!’

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amanda on November 5, 2011 at 6:46pm

Desmond, on second thought, I am wondering if you are referring to progressive creationism? Is that your current belief? If I am not mistaken you have mentioned Scripture interpreting Scripture, the Hebrew word "yom" to have multiple translation possibilities, ranging from 24 hours, year, time, age, and the continuing seventh day (Hebrews 4). 

Since you said you do not believe God used Darwinism to create, and since theistic evolution believes in transforming life forms, I can only think that your view must be modern progressive creationism.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bible-Talk on November 6, 2011 at 6:37am

Hi Amanda,

I am trying to understand the creation of man according to teleological evolution - intelligence and purpose (God) behind it all.

 

The article above by Allan Rosser is interesting to read and indeed so was the one by Ken Ham.

 

The issue of death, disease etc is an interesting point - the consequences of sin. The immediate consequence of Adam's sin (Rom.5) was the onset of a spiritual death, and the subsequent restriction of his lifespan resulting in physical death IMO.

 

Chapter 5 of Genesis is quite interesting not just in terms of the deaths of all those people mentioned -  but have you ever wondered why any of them lived to such extraordinary ages? Adam was 930 years old when he died. In effect Genesis 5 is about Adam's family line. Did God have a reason for keeping them alive for so long - despite Adams transgression all those years ago? Could God have not equally kept animals alive for however long if He had reasons to do so?

 

Can I suggest a couple of thoughts?

 

In the beginning did God create one man from dust - or did He create mankind from dust? I am more in view of mankind. The various races inhabiting the earth could have all had ancestral "Adams" (and "Eves") with the first ever one being called Adam - the one in the Garden of Eden.

Something else that I find interesting is when God allowed Adam the privilege of naming each living creature - how long did it take him to do that? 

 

 

"God must have been deceiving us when He said He made man from dust. What prevented Him from telling it like it was?" 

 

God did tell it like it was but did'nt He choose not to explain how? 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amanda on November 6, 2011 at 9:52am

Desmond, I posted another srticle elsewhere in this discussion which aligns with my belief's about Adam's sin causing physical and spiritual death. I believe there was no physical death before the Fall of Man. Man was removed from Eden and the tree of life became no long accessible. Otherwise Adam and Eve and everyone in the first world would all still be living, wouldn't they, and living forever in their sinful condition.

I cannot entertain the thoughts of there being many Adams and Eves and God creating "mankind from the dust"--if you mean He created a legion of Adams all at once. Saying that is, IMO, adding words to Scripture and changing the meaning as well as context. Eisegesis

I have often thought about why did they live so long? The answer is that God purposefully shortened lifespans according to His own timing and His own plan. Genesis 6:3

Life spans are even shorter now. Psalm 90:10

The earth is wearing out like a garment. Isaiah 51:6 All of creation is dying and has physical corruption. Romans 8:20-25

But you know these things, Desmond. 

 

Permalink Reply by dean burrows on November 6, 2011 at 10:46am

Amanda another thought  ^ days means literally 6 24 hour periods and this is the way it would appear in my understanding. As we read on scripture is very plan to say that by the end of Genesis chptr.4 Adam and his wife had relations and if you count them 3 times. 3 sons.  from that Cain and Cain's sons all got married to wives. And so on and so on  do we not read this literally. Or is it open for interpretation.

Permalink Reply by Amanda on November 6, 2011 at 4:39pm

Hey Dean, I really like math and I especially enjoy very eloquent and elegant equations and Physics. We could do the math but instead I will spare you because it can be boring to those who don't like math. Cain's wife did not necessarily have to be his sister though or anyone of Adam and Eve's descendants living in close proximity to Adam and Eve although she definitely had to be a descendant of Adam and Eve. So I will share this article instead:

Cain's Wife--Who Was She? by Ken Ham

Why Is It Important?
Many skeptics have claimed that for Cain to find a wife, there must have been other “races” of people on the earth who were not descendants of Adam and Eve. To many people, this question is a stumbling block to accepting the creation account of Genesis and its record of only one man and woman at the beginning of history. Defenders of the gospel must be able to show that all human beings are descendants of one man and one woman (Adam and Eve) because only descendants of Adam and Eve can be saved. Thus, believers need to be able to account for Cain’s wife and show clearly she was a descendant of Adam and Eve.

In order to answer this question of where Cain got his wife, we first need to cover some background information concerning the meaning of the gospel.

The First Man
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12).

We read in 1 Corinthians 15:45 that Adam was “the first man.” God did not start by making a race of men.

The Bible makes it clear that only the descendants of Adam can be saved. Romans 5 teaches that we sin because Adam sinned. The death penalty, which Adam received as judgment for his sin of rebellion, has also been passed on to all his descendants.

Since Adam was the head of the human race, when he fell we who were in the loins of Adam fell also. Thus, we are all separated from God. The final consequence of sin would be separation from God in our sinful state forever. However, the good news is that there is a way for us to return to God.

Because a man brought sin and death into the world, the human race, who are all descendants of Adam, needed a sinless Man to pay the penalty for sin and the resulting judgment of death. However, the Bible teaches that “all have sinned” (Romans 3:23). What was the solution?

The Last Adam
God provided the solution—a way to deliver man from his wretched state. Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15 that God provided another Adam. The Son of God became a man—a perfect Man—yet still our relation. He is called “the last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45) because he took the place of the first Adam. He became the new head and, because He was sinless, was able to pay the penalty for sin:

For since by [a] man came death, by [a] Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:21–22).
Christ suffered death (the penalty for sin) on the Cross, shedding His blood (“and without shedding of blood there is no remission,” Hebrews 9:22) so that those who put their trust in His work on the Cross can come in repentance of their sin of rebellion (in Adam) and be reconciled to God.

Thus, only descendants of the first man Adam can be saved.

All Related
Since the Bible describes all human beings as sinners, and we are all related (“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth,” Acts 17:26), the gospel makes sense only on the basis that all humans alive and all that have ever lived (except for the first woman ) are descendants of the first man Adam. If this were not so, then the gospel could not be explained or defended.

Thus, there was only one man at the beginning—made from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7).

This also means that Cain’s wife was a descendant of Adam. She couldn’t have come from another race of people and must be accounted for from Adam’s descendants.

 

Permalink Reply by Amanda on November 6, 2011 at 4:44pm

Continuation of article by Ken Ham regarding Cain's wife:

The First Woman
In Genesis 3:20 we read, “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” In other words, all people other than Adam are descendants of Eve—she was the first woman.

Eve was made from Adam’s side (Genesis 2:21–24)—this was a unique event. In the New Testament, Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6) and Paul (Ephesians 5:31) use this historical and onetime event as the foundation for the marriage of one man and one woman.

Also, in Genesis 2:20, we are told that when Adam looked at the animals, he couldn’t find a mate—there was no one of his kind.

All this makes it obvious that there was only one woman, Adam’s wife, from the beginning. There could not have been a “race” of women.

Thus, if Christians cannot defend that all humans, including Cain’s wife, can trace their ancestry ultimately to Adam and Eve, then how can they understand and explain the gospel? How can they justify sending missionaries to every tribe and nation? Therefore, one needs to be able to explain Cain’s wife, to illustrate that Christians can defend the gospel and all that it teaches.

Who Was Cain?
Cain was the first child of Adam and Eve recorded in Scripture (Genesis 4:1). He and his brothers, Abel (Genesis 4:2) and Seth (Genesis 4:25), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this earth. Even though these three males are specifically mentioned, Adam and Eve had other children.

Cain’s Brothers and Sisters
In Genesis 5:4 we read a statement that sums up the life of Adam and Eve: “After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.”

During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus wrote, “The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.”7

Scripture doesn’t tell us how many children were born to Adam and Eve, but considering their long life spans (Adam lived for 930 years—Genesis 5:5), it would seem logical to suggest there were many. Remember, they were commanded to “be fruitful, and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).

The Wife
If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extrabiblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to marry sisters or there wouldn’t have been any more generations!

We’re not told when Cain married or many of the details of other marriages and children, but we can say for certain that Cain’s wife was either his sister or a close relative.

A closer look at the Hebrew word for “wife” in Genesis reveals something readers may miss in translation. It was more obvious to those speaking Hebrew that Cain’s wife was likely his sister. (There is a slim possibility that she was his niece, but either way, a brother and sister would have married in the beginning.) The Hebrew word for “wife” used in Genesis 4:17 (the first mention of Cain’s wife) is ishshah, and it means “woman/wife/female.”

And Cain knew his wife [ishshah], and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch (Genesis 4:17).
The word ishshah is the word for “woman,” and it means “from man.” It is a derivation of the Hebrew words ‘iysh (pronounced: eesh) and enowsh, which both mean “man.” This can be seen in Genesis 2:23 where the name “woman” (ishshah) is given to one who came from Adam.

And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman [ishshah], because she was taken out of Man [iysh]” (Genesis 2:23).
Thus, Cain’s wife is a descendant of Adam/man. Therefore, she had to be his sister (or possibly niece). Hebrew readers should be able to make this connection easier; however, much is lost when translated.

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on November 5, 2011 at 12:54pm

Desmond,

 

You are assuming too much as to what and why others believe certain things that do not align with your POV.

 

Here is an article from gotquestions.org:

Question: "How do beliefs about creation impact the rest of theology?"

Answer: The creation/evolution debate has been raging for years. To many, it seems like two opposing sides yelling at each other with no one really listening. The vitriol has gotten to the point where each side reflexively dismisses the other – evolutionists dismiss creationists as completely ignoring science, and creationists accuse evolutionists of engaging in all sorts of Machiavellian conspiracies to silence their side. This is not to dismiss the arguments of either side as being hyperbolic, but simply to point out that there is precious little honest dialogue going on in this verbal war.

Because of this sentiment, many Christians relegate the creation/evolution debate to the status of a secondary issue, an issue that does not relate to how one becomes right with God through the gospel of Jesus Christ. To a certain extent, this line of thinking is correct. We can get so caught up in this debate that we lose our focus from the main issue—the spread of the gospel. However, as with many other “secondary” issues, what one believes regarding creation plays a role in how one views theology in general and the gospel in particular.

Regarding the doctrine of creation, there are several views within Christianity:

1. Literal 24x6 creation – God created all there is in six 24-hour days.

2. Day-Age view – The creation events occurred as depicted in Genesis 1, but instead of six 24-hour days, the “days” of creation represent indeterminate, finite periods of time.

3. The Framework view – The days of Genesis 1 represent a theological framework within which to narrate the creation of all things.

Throughout most of church history, up until the last 150 years, the 24x6 view of creation has been the dominant view of the church. We don’t want to believe something simply because it’s traditional and historical, including the 24x6 view of creation, but we do want to believe a doctrine because it’s supported by the text of Scripture. In this particular case, it is believed by many conservative theologians that the 24x6 view, in addition to having the weight of history, also has the strongest exegetical support from the text. First and foremost, it’s the natural view one gets from simply reading the text. Additionally, whenever the Hebrew word for “day” (Yom) is accompanied by a numeric modifier (e.g., four days) or the combination “morning and evening” (as in Genesis 1), it always refers to a 24-hour day. Finally, the seven-day pattern set forth during creation week is the pattern from which we get our week (Exodus 20:8-11).

Since the advent of modern science, the 24x6 view of creation has been increasingly abandoned by Christians. The primary reason for this rejection is the fact that the 24x6 view of creation necessitates a “young earth” age of the universe (anywhere from 6,000 to 30,000 years), and the prevailing scientific view is that the universe is billions of years old. The Day-Age view (sometimes called progressive creationism) is an attempt to reconcile the Genesis creation account with an “old earth” view of the age of the universe. Please note that the Day-Age view still posits that God created all things and it still rejects Darwinian evolution, so is not to be confused with “theistic evolution,” the view that Darwinian evolution is true but, instead of being guided by blind chance, it was actually guided by the hand of God. However, while Day-Age proponents see themselves as reconciling the biblical account with science, opponents see this view as a slippery slope to rejecting the veracity of God’s word.

Because the creation/evolution debate has been relegated to secondary status, there is little or no concern over the theological implications of denying the biblical view of creation (regardless of which view one takes). The conventional wisdom is that it doesn't make a difference whether or not evolution is true. The doctrine of creation is seen as disconnected with the rest of the Christian message. In truth, however, what one believes regarding creation is actually crucial because it goes to the issue of the inerrancy, trustworthiness, and authority of Scripture. If the Bible can’t be trusted in the first two chapters, what makes it trustworthy throughout the rest of the book? Typically, critics of the Bible will focus their attacks on the first eleven chapters of Genesis (in particular the creation account). The question is, why? The first eleven chapters of Genesis set the stage for the rest of the biblical story. You can’t understand the unfolding narrative of Scripture without Genesis 1–11. There is so much foundational material in these chapters for the rest of the Bible—e.g., creation, the fall, sin, the certainty of judgment, the necessity of a Savior, and the introduction of the gospel. To ignore these foundational doctrines would render the rest of the Bible as unintelligible and irrelevant.

Yet critics of the Bible and those who have placed science in authority over the Bible want to treat these opening chapters of Genesis as ancient Hebrew myth rather than primeval history. The truth of the matter is that compared to the creation stories of other cultures, the Genesis account reads more like history than myth. In most ancient literature, creation is seen as a struggle between the gods. Most creation myths portray the culture in question as the center of the religious universe. The Genesis account, while sharing many similarities with other creation stories, differs in that it portrays God as the sole Sovereign over creation (not one among many gods) and mankind as the pinnacle of His creation, serving as His stewards over creation. To be sure, there are unanswered questions with the Genesis account, such as the exact date of creation, but the purpose of the Genesis account isn't to give a complete historical account that would pass muster with modern-day historians. The Genesis account was a pre-history of the Jewish people as they were preparing to enter the Promised Land; they needed to know who they were and from where they came.

Another thing to note is that much of Christian theology is based on the historical accuracy of the Genesis account. The concept of marriage comes right out of the creation account (Genesis 2:24) and is referred to by Jesus in all three synoptic gospels. Our Lord Himself acknowledges that man was created male and female "from the beginning of creation" (Matthew 19:4). These references rely on the historical accuracy of the Genesis creation account for them to make any sense. Most importantly, our most cherished doctrine of salvation is dependent on the doctrine of creation and the existence of a literal person named Adam. Twice in the Pauline epistles (Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15), Paul links our salvation in Christ with our identification in Adam. In 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, we read, “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” The entire human race is in a fallen state by virtue of being “in Adam” through natural birth. In similar manner, those whom God has chosen for salvation are saved by virtue of being “in Christ” through spiritual birth. The “in Adam/in Christ” distinction is crucial to a proper understanding of Christian soteriology, and this distinction makes no sense if there were no literal Adam from whom all humanity descended.

Paul argues in a similar vein in Romans 5:12-21. But what makes this passage unique is that it explicitly says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). This verse is the linchpin in the argument for total depravity (the “first plank” in the Calvinist platform), and like the 1 Corinthians passage, it depends on the existence of a literal Adam for it to make any kind of sense. Without a literal Adam, there is no literal sin and no need for a literal Savior.

Despite what position one takes on the doctrine of creation (24x6 view, Day-Age view, or Framework view), one thing is clear: God created the heavens and the earth. While we believe the 24x6 view possesses the strongest biblical argument, the other two views are valid interpretations within the sphere of Christian orthodoxy. What needs to be stressed is that the Bible does not (either explicitly or implicitly) teach the Darwinian view of evolution. Therefore, to state that the creation/evolution debate is not important is to have a low view of Scripture. If we cannot trust the Bible when it speaks on the matter of creation, why should we trust it to speak on salvation? That is why what we believe regarding creation is important to the rest of our theology.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bible-Talk on November 6, 2011 at 6:44am

LT - I would like to get back to you ... there is quite a lot of stuff in both your posts. Hope you don't mind?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 17
• Next ›
• Page