Can a "True Christian" Believe in the Water Cycle?

[Man of Faith]

Just wondering what your response is to the OP. Sure, accepting the water cycle doesn't necessarily effect the whole salvation narrative, as you believe accepting evolution would, but it still would be inaccurate according to the Bible. It would require taking a less literal approach to passages of the Bible which claim that God just sends the rain. Are you fine with that?

Of course. I only take the literal parts as literal.

 

[Falvlun]

Of course. I only take the literal parts as literal.

How do you know which are literal and which are not? Namely, are none of the passages about God sending rain "literal"?

 

[Man of Faith]

How do you know which are literal and which are not? Namely, are none of the passages about God sending rain "literal"?

I’m not sure how it all works, how God uses the forces he created to do what he pleases, I’m merely a man. If God sent the rain, he could have used natural processes to do it, or he could have let natural processes do it and made sure they did it if they were slack in anyway. God makes sure that the waters stay where they are in their boundaries and go no further after the flood. Are there forces wanting to move the waters over the land where they aren’t supposed to go or is the nature that God created doing that for him? I don’t know for sure really. But I can have confidence that there will never be another global flood because He said so. When the OP says that the Bible says that rain comes from God alone, not the natural process that is really indefensible given that God can use the processes that he created to do his will. If God makes sure it rains in a certain place, it doesn’t mean that the water didn’t come from evaporation and condensation. However there are times where God has created water without those processes, like in the beginning of creation and also when Moses struck the stone and water came out of the stone for them to drink.

Concerning when a verse is literal vs metaphoric, it is mostly common sense just like today when we read a book. We don’t call the author on every little thing and ask if it was literal or metaphoric, we take it by the context and format of what they are saying and also look at their other works to know. Take my post from a different thread “Scientific data doesn't have an argument, it just sits there.” People aren’t really going to think that I think that data actually sits like a person or an animal sits. Also we have experts in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic to help us with the context and format of the writings.

 

[Parsimony]

When the OP says that the Bible says that rain comes from God alone, not the natural process that is really indefensible given that God can use the processes that he created to do his will.

You mean like how God could have used the natural process of evolution to create humans and animals?

 

[Man of Faith]

You mean like how God could have used the natural process of evolution to create humans and animals?

Yes he could have but he didn't and we know this because of the Biblical descripton of creation and also the evidence fits the creation model better than the evolution models.

 

[Parsimony]

Yes he could have but he didn't and we know this because of the Biblical descripton of creation and also the evidence fits the creation model better than the evolution models.

You mean how fossils are stratified in such a way that we find no evidence of man coexisting with dinosaurs or trilobites? Literal creationism would say they should be in the same layers. We have found hundreds of non-avian dinosaur skeletons below the K-Pg boundary and none above. We find human remains above the K-Pg boundary but not below. How does creationism explain this?

Bah, you know what, nevermind. We have enough threads discussing that as it is...

 

[rusra02]

From Christian Evolutionist Tyler Franke:



I'll just restate that last bit with some extra emphasis: "What is so wrong with thinking that the same God who uses a natural process to send the rain upon the earth, would also use a natural process when he filled this planet with life?"

And that's my question to any YEC'ers around here. Because the real conflict is not between science and religion. There are plenty of us who have both in our lives, quite comfortably. And it's really us that you have to answer to, for insisting on a distortion of scripture that trumps science, and then representing that view to the world as Christianity.

I am not a YEC. But the Bible does accurately and simply describe the water cycle at Ecclesiastes 1:7. Since God created the cycles upon which life depend, it is certainly accurate that God makes it rain, IMO. In the past, he has withheld rain when his people were unfaithful, demonstrating his complete control. (1Kings 17:1) as to your question, the theory of evolution is, in fact, a repudiation of both the Bible and the Christian faith. Further, it is an unproven theory the evidence does not support, IMO. There is no distortion in the Bible. Nor does the Bible disagree with proven science.

 

[Man of Faith]

You mean how fossils are stratified in such a way that we find no evidence of man coexisting with dinosaurs or trilobites? Literal creationism would say they should be in the same layers. We have found hundreds of non-avian dinosaur skeletons below the K-Pg boundary and none above. We find human remains above the K-Pg boundary but not below. How does creationism explain this?

Bah, you know what, nevermind. We have enough threads discussing that as it is...

Evolution has it's own fossil issues.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am not a YEC. But the Bible does accurately and simply describe the water cycle at Ecclesiastes 1:7. Since God created the cycles upon which life depend, it is certainly accurate that God makes it rain, IMO. In the past, he has withheld rain when his people were unfaithful, demonstrating his complete control. (1Kings 17:1) as to your question, the theory of evolution is, in fact, a repudiation of both the Bible and the Christian faith.

In what way, specifically?

 

[ChristineES]

Just because something might be metaphorical, that does not mean it is not true. If the creation story is metaphoric, it does indeed have many truths in it. I think sometimes people believe that metaphoric=false, and I disagree with that. There are a hundred different ways to view the creation story.

So accepting the water cycle does not mean that someone is a non-believer in God or a false believer.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just because something might be metaphorical, that does not mean it is not true. If the creation story is metaphoric, it does indeed have many truths in it. I think sometimes people believe that metaphoric=false, and I disagree with that. There are a hundred different ways to view the creation story.

So accepting the water cycle does not mean that someone is a non-believer in God or a false believer.

The OP is more of a of the creationist mindset than of theists in general; that a given explanation for a phenomena that does not involve a God goes against the teachings of the Bible. It specifically deals with those few who choose to take the Bible literally, and use that as a means to try and refute scientific understanding.

 

[nazz]

Just because something might be metaphorical, that does not mean it is not true. If the creation story is metaphoric, it does indeed have many truths in it. I think sometimes people believe that metaphoric=false, and I disagree with that. There are a hundred different ways to view the creation story.

So accepting the water cycle does not mean that someone is a non-believer in God or a false believer.

The way I see it God is the ultimate source of everything so that includes rainfall. But there is no deity controlling when it falls and when it doesn't and especially not because people are good or bad. It's just a natural process. As Jesus said it falls on the good and bad alike.

 

[rusra02]

In what way, specifically?

The Bible says man is a direct creation of God, as are the animals. Genesis 2:7 states: "And Jehovah God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living person." The Theory of Evolution repudiates this.
The Bible describes man's fall into sin and death. (Genesis 3:17,18) The Theory of Evolution repudiates this.
The Bible teaches that Jesus provided a ransom sacrifice of his own perfect human life. If Adam is a myth, then so must be the ransom.(1 Corinthians 15:21,22)
Further, if the ToE is true, then Christ did not teach the truth, because he taught that God created Adam and Eve.
Either the ToE is false or the Bible is. Despite all the propaganda that there is no question about evolution, questions remain in abundance. This quote nicely sums up the situation for evolutionists (highlight added): "Biochemist Michael Behe states: “Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science’s attempt to explain their origins. . . . Many scientists have gamely asserted that explanations are already in hand, or will be sooner or later, but no support for such assertions can be found in the professional science literature. More importantly, there are compelling reasons—based on the structure of the [biomolecular] systems themselves—to think that a Darwinian explanation for the mechanisms of life will forever prove elusive.”

 

[nazz]

The Bible says man is a direct creation of God, as are the animals. Genesis 2:7 states: "And Jehovah God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living person." The Theory of Evolution repudiates this.
The Bible describes man's fall into sin and death. (Genesis 3:17,18) The Theory of Evolution repudiates this.
The Bible teaches that Jesus provided a ransom sacrifice of his own perfect human life. If Adam is a myth, then so must be the ransom.(1 Corinthians 15:21,22)
Further, if the ToE is true, then Christ did not teach the truth, because he taught that God created Adam and Eve.
Either the ToE is false or the Bible is.

I might quibble with some of these statements but in essence what you are saying is basically correct. And I think it's a more honest approach than those who try to hang on to the bible as being infallible historic fact AND try to say they accept scientific theory. But here is the thing. Would you rather hang on to false beliefs or accept truth? I think you would say you would rather have the truth, right? Well, if that really is the case than denying real world facts and accepting instead something written in a book is not the way to go.

 

[Ouroboros]

The Bible says man is a direct creation of God, as are the animals. Genesis 2:7 states: "And Jehovah God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living person."

Since no child born has to have God blow air in their nostrils to make them breathe, it's obvious that this passage is figurative and not literal. In all reality, a baby starts breathing by taking a breathe of air. So if that's God, then God is Nature. And Genesis talks about Nature as God.

The Theory of Evolution repudiates this.

Not if God and Nature are the same. And not if you try a little harder to read the passage as religious prose rather than historical document.

One of many problems here is that the author (scribe or whatever) of Genesis wasn't there during creation. How would he/she know exactly what went down? And if he/she had a vision, how can we know that he/she interpreted his/her dream/vision correctly or even had words to describe it?

To read Genesis literally requires the reader to assume the authors to have meant it to be literal. How would anyone be certain of that? Who says in the Bible Genesis must be literal?

The Bible describes man's fall into sin and death. (Genesis 3:17,18) The Theory of Evolution repudiates this.

It's the same problem here. You would have to read it on a different level, from a different approach, to really understand the meaning behind the words. Reading them literally is killing the spirit of the words.

The Bible teaches that Jesus provided a ransom sacrifice of his own perfect human life. If Adam is a myth, then so must be the ransom.(1 Corinthians 15:21,22)

Myth is not the same as a lie. Myth just means that it's not historical. A myth portrays truths in a context of story. Man (Adam), is humanity in its early days. The sin is our ancestors and our own strive to separate us from Nature through knowledge which can bring both good and evil. Jesus, that's who we have to become to save ourselves from the knowledge oriented mind and come into a spiritual and experiential mind. That's how we're born again, by becoming Jesus. He's a template for us to become. This doesn't contradict evolution at all.

Further, if the ToE is true, then Christ did not teach the truth, because he taught that God created Adam and Eve.

God = Nature.

Nature brought about Adam and Even (mankind, Homo sapiens).

Either the ToE is false or the Bible is.

Or you're reading the Bible literally instead of allegorical (like Philo of Alexandria understood already 2,000 years ago, an actual contemporary of Jesus).

Despite all the propaganda that there is no question about evolution, questions remain in abundance. This quote nicely sums up the situation for evolutionists (highlight added): "Biochemist Michael Behe states: “Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science’s attempt to explain their origins. . . . Many scientists have gamely asserted that explanations are already in hand, or will be sooner or later, but no support for such assertions can be found in the professional science literature. More importantly, there are compelling reasons—based on the structure of the [biomolecular] systems themselves—to think that a Darwinian explanation for the mechanisms of life will forever prove elusive.”

Here's a key for you: he talks about the origins of life, not Evolution per se.

Behe believes Evolution to be true, except that he believes God is guiding it instead of just natural selection. He believes that there's more to evolution than just natural processes, but he doesn't deny that evolution is actually happening!

So by quoting him to support your view, you are in essence agreeing that Evolution is true.

And if you would take my approach and accept Nature as God, then there's no conflict between a Nature/God guiding Evolution, since that's how Nature/God is/works.

The conflict is only an illusion.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

From Christian Evolutionist Tyler Franke:



I'll just restate that last bit with some extra emphasis: "What is so wrong with thinking that the same God who uses a natural process to send the rain upon the earth, would also use a natural process when he filled this planet with life?"

And that's my question to any YEC'ers around here. Because the real conflict is not between science and religion. There are plenty of us who have both in our lives, quite comfortably. And it's really us that you have to answer to, for insisting on a distortion of scripture that trumps science, and then representing that view to the world as Christianity.

If a religion forbids you to believe scientific fact, simply because it is an "inconvience" to their faith, it is best to stay away from that faith altogether.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The Bible says man is a direct creation of God, as are the animals. Genesis 2:7 states: "And Jehovah God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living person." The Theory of Evolution repudiates this.
The Bible describes man's fall into sin and death. (Genesis 3:17,18) The Theory of Evolution repudiates this.

In what way is that different to the notion of the water cycle repudiating the Bible's teaching that “God sends the rain”? Could not the Bible merely be speaking non-literally, in the exact same way? If your interpretation is that the Bible means that God is responsible for the water cycle and can therefore be said to "send the rain", cannot the passages you have quoted be interpreted to mean that God merely set up the foundations and sequences of events that would allow humans to evolve over time? Could not the story of man's fall be read the same way?

The Bible teaches that Jesus provided a ransom sacrifice of his own perfect human life. If Adam is a myth, then so must be the ransom.(1 Corinthians 15:21,22)

Unless it was allegorical, but that is up to interpretation. Did Jesus ever specify that the sin he was sacrificing himself to absolve was the sin of Adam?

Further, if the ToE is true, then Christ did not teach the truth, because he taught that God created Adam and Eve.

Unless, again, he was speaking in allegory, which I believe is something he regularly did in the Bible.

Either the ToE is false or the Bible is.

Or the Bible can merely be partly true, partly allegorical/metaphor/parable. The Bible needn't be an entirely 100% accurate reflection of past events in order for it to serve as an accurate handbook on the way a God may want you to live your life. It depends on your interpretation.

Despite all the propaganda that there is no question about evolution, questions remain in abundance.

This, I agree with. There are lots of questions about evolution, just as there are lots of questions about gravity. And, just as with gravity, the broad strokes of what we know are established facts - only lots of details remain.

This quote nicely sums up the situation for evolutionists (highlight added): "Biochemist Michael Behe states: “Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science’s attempt to explain their origins. . . . Many scientists have gamely asserted that explanations are already in hand, or will be sooner or later, but no support for such assertions can be found in the professional science literature. More importantly, there are compelling reasons—based on the structure of the [biomolecular] systems themselves—to think that a Darwinian explanation for the mechanisms of life will forever prove elusive.”

I fail to see how this quote is in any well compelling evidence of your claim. Michael Behe accepts common descent, as he said so himself in Darwin's Black Box, he just rejects Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection of being able to account for molecular life:

"Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small."

And in another of his books:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.”

Michael Behe clearly does not agree with you in the slightest, despite being an ID advocate himself. Furthermore, Behe's most prominent contribution to the "science" o ID is the notion of irreducible complexity, which was roundly debunked. He is not a good advocate for your position.

 

[DeepShadow]

The whole Bible backs up the Genesis account of creation and the flood.

Only in the sense that it refers to it. "Refers to" is not the same as "backs up."

Take away Genesis and there is nothing. There is no Jesus because his lineage is traced all the way back to the garden of Eden, even through Noah.

Wait, so if we don't have the exact details of a person's ancestry, the person doesn't exist?

There is no salvation because salvation comes from the second Adam and if there is no first Adam, there can be no second.

There are lots of ways to have an Adam with evolution. We're not throwing out all of Genesis, just admitting that it was never intended as a science textbook.

Consider: My 5-year old asks about where babies come from. I say that babies are made by loving parents, and they grow in the mommy's tummy until they are able to live outside of her.

Have I lied?

Should I have said "uterus" instead of "tummy," to avoid a misunderstanding that babies grow in the stomach? Bear in mind that my 5-year old has no understanding of a uterus.

Should I have admitted that babies are not always created by loving parents, but explained how babies can happen outside of a loving relationship, even as a product of casual sex, artificial insemination or rape?

Should I have explained the exact process leading up to conception and implantation, including terms like "sperm," "ejaculation," "fertilization," "chromosome," "zygote," "blastocyst," and "placenta"?

My description of where babies come from is woefully incomplete--even incorrect--from a scientific standpoint. And yet it's all my son is ready to understand and comprehend at that point.

Likewise, if God had told Moses, "The first man was created from the dust of the earth using natural selection over many generations and millions of years..." Moses would have more questions than answers after that conversation. Like my son, he'd probably be VERY confused by the more scientifically robust answer--so much so that he'd be unable to frame any of his questions properly.

Insisting that the Bible be a science textbook is unfair to both science, religion and the audience of both. God gives us information "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little," (Isaiah 28:9-10) according to our ability to understand it. Just like any good, loving Father.

 

[DeepShadow]

I am not a YEC.

How so? You agree with so many of their points in your post--where do you disagree with them?

as to your question, the theory of evolution is, in fact, a repudiation of both the Bible and the Christian faith.

Again, how so? Please explain how my acceptance of the ToE requires me to repudiate my belief in Christ as my savior. Because a lot of people have missed that, such as the God of Evolution bloggers and the entire BioLogos Foundation.

Further, it is an unproven theory the evidence does not support, IMO.

What evidence does not support it? Evolution has made thousands of predictions. Many of these have been tested and verified. To my knowledge, no contrary predictions have borne any fruit. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please share it, because Tyler Franke sums up the current state of things as I see them:

We have found fossil series that clearly illustrate the transitions of dozens of major features in various lines. We have found “fishapods” and “frogamanders” and walking whales and feathered dinosaurs and half-shelled turtles. We have often and repeatedly found exactly what the theory of evolution predicted we would find, in the time period in which the theory predicted we would find it.

The primary measure of a good theory is in whether it predicts things. Evolution has had more successful predictions than many other theories, including the theory of plate tectonics. Do you think we should be using a different theory to predict earthquakes?

Evolution has it's own fossil issues.

See the above. What fossil issues are you talking about? Be specific.

 

[DeepShadow]

The Bible says man is a direct creation of God, as are the animals. Genesis 2:7 states: "And Jehovah God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living person." The Theory of Evolution repudiates this.

My first grade teacher said you cannot subtract a number from a smaller number. The concept of negative numbers repudiates this. Does this mean that my first grade teacher was lying? Or is it remotely possible that she had to limit the truth she told me, until I was ready for details?

The Bible describes man's fall into sin and death. (Genesis 3:17,18) The Theory of Evolution repudiates this.

False. The theory of evolution says nothing about the fall of Man. :no:

The Bible teaches that Jesus provided a ransom sacrifice of his own perfect human life. If Adam is a myth, then so must be the ransom.(1 Corinthians 15:21,22)

A) The theory of evolution does not preclude a Biblical Adam; ergo, you can keep your Adam, and your ransom.

B) Even a mythical Adam does not preclude a ransom, if Adam's deeds were symbolic for something else we must be ransomed to. Ergo, you can lose Adam, and still have a ransom.

Further, if the ToE is true, then Christ did not teach the truth, because he taught that God created Adam and Eve.

If Algebra is true, then my first grade teacher did not teach the truth, because she said you can't subtract a number from a smaller number.

Either the ToE is false or the Bible is.

Either Algebra is false, or my first grade teacher was a liar. No other option.

Despite all the propaganda that there is no question about evolution, questions remain in abundance.

Great! We love questions. Give us a few.

"Biochemist Michael Behe states: “Many scientists have gamely asserted that explanations are already in hand, or will be sooner or later, but no support for such assertions can be found in the professional science literature. More importantly, there are compelling reasons—based on the structure of the [biomolecular] systems themselves—to think that a Darwinian explanation for the mechanisms of life will forever prove elusive.”

1) That's a statement, not a question.
2) That's not about the theory of evolution. It's about the origin of life, which evolution does not address. A "Darwinian explanation for the mechanisms of life will forever prove elusive" because Darwin never proposed any such explanation.
3) As others have pointed out, that statement has been tested after it was made, and has been found to be dubious. To wit, predictions made from it have yielded contrary results. This is how we test things in science--does it make correct predictions?

Strangely, this is one of the things that the Bible tells us to do: test a prophet to see if his prophecies come true. If they do, the prophet comes from God. By this logic, Darwin was sent by God.