evolution in the bible

[heksesang]

So you're a literal creationist instead of a symbolic one. This is what i wanted to know. Are Adam and Eve symbolic or literal to you?

If your entire first post was symbolic, then we still need to ascertain its true meaning. If it's symbolic, then what does it have to do with evolution? What is it a metaphor of?

The belief that God ignited the big bang and otherwise scientific theory does not constitute literal creationism. It might constitute a form of creationism, because it's a belief that an act of God created the universe, but it's not literal because it does not accept what is written in any creation story in a literal form, making it symbolic creationism.

Yes.



But you just said earlier that the story is symbolic and not to be taken literally. Now it's again a literal argument? Okay, fine.

IF they existed then no: There is no such change within one generation in two individuals before they have even reproduced.

We are talking about biology. Remember that.

Adam and Eve are representative of early humanity, if you are to take the story as symbolic (see my above point).

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yes, but normally evolution doesn't involve magical fruit.

Sometimes it takes poplar branches too.

 

[Darkstorn]

The belief that God ignited the big bang and otherwise scientific theory does not constitute literal creationism. It might constitute a form of creationism, because it's a belief that an act of God created the universe, but it's not literal because it does not accept what is written in any creation story in a literal form, making it symbolic creationism.

That's semantics. And a form of a creation story, even if no one has made it into a book.

Not to mention it's not unique: It's common with people who accept the findings of science AND the existence of God.

In fact most Catholics i've ever talked to think like that.

The part where "God started the big bang" is to be taken literally after all. I think you are confusing my point with "literary."

In the context of literal versus figurative your kind of creation story is to be taken literally instead of figuratively. That is what I mean and the definition of literal supports what I said.

The act of creation: Literal of figurative?

Adam and Eve are representative of early humanity, if you are to take the story as symbolic (see my above point).

If it's symbolic, it is metaphorical. If so, it's not really an argument about evolution at all. Which is the point i'm trying to make. The OP is taking a story that is allegorical and combining it with a concept from biology.

I feel they are incompatible. That is what I refer to. And results in the OP being entirely meaningless.

I am not making any particular claims of the story.

 

[heksesang]

That's semantics. And a form of a creation story, even if no one has made it into a book.

Not to mention it's not unique: It's common with people who accept the findings of science AND the existence of God.

In fact most Catholics i've ever talked to think like that.

The part where "God started the big bang" is to be taken literally after all. I think you are confusing my point with "literary."

In the context of literal versus figurative your kind of creation story is to be taken literally instead of figuratively. That is what I mean and the definition of literal supports what I said.

The act of creation: Literal of figurative?



If it's symbolic, it is metaphorical. If so, it's not really an argument about evolution at all. Which is the point i'm trying to make. The OP is taking a story that is allegorical and combining it with a concept from biology.

I feel they are incompatible. That is what I refer to. And results in the OP being entirely meaningless.

I am not making any particular claims of the story.

Evolution isn't dependent on there being no initial act of creation, it only depends on natural processes forming the final outcome from that point. A symbolic view of creationism accepts this fact. It's still technically creationism because it posits that God was the acting force that started the big bang, but the big bang isn't literally mentioned in the creation story. So from this view, the whole creation story is symbolic, while God still created the big bang.

I just got the impression that you were trying to present some idea that one cannot both believe that God created the big bang and still view the creation story as something symbolic. Your logic seemed to be because OP believed God creating the big bang, a thing that is not written literally in the creation story, he believes in literal creationism, but a literal creationist wouldn't believe something that isn't literally written in the Bible story.

I am sorry if this just some misunderstanding.

And I think OP's point is that the creation story is a metaphorical explanation of how evolution works (with the implication that the old priests actually knew about evolution) - there are some similarities between the creation story and evolution theories (snakes used to have legs like in the creation story, some of the order of creation fits the order we theorize evolution happened etc.). But I agree that there are too many inconsistencies, it's more likely that the story is just a myth.

 

[Darkstorn]

Evolution isn't dependent on there being no initial act of creation, it only depends on natural processes forming the final outcome from that point. A symbolic view of creationism accepts this fact. It's still technically creationism because it posits that God was the acting force that started the big bang, but the big bang isn't literally mentioned in the creation story. So from this view, the whole creation story is symbolic, while God still created the big bang.

That's still just semantics. You are confusing literary with literal here. I am saying that you believe that the God created the Big Bang. literally. Not figuratively. That makes one literally a creationist. Perhaps not one based on a particular literary interpretation though.

The creation story might still be symbolic. But creationism is not the same as the creation story. Creationism is the belief that the universe and life came about through an act of divine creation. Literally.

And like i said, "God creating the big bang" is a form of creation story. Unwritten in "official" religious texts maybe, but it's still the same type of story as the one found in the Bible.

I just got the impression that you were trying to present some idea that one cannot both believe that God created the big bang and still view the creation story as something symbolic.

I wasn't really doing that though. I'm saying the way the OP makes the point also makes his argument essentially meaningless. It's a criticism of his argument only.

Your logic seemed to be because OP believed God creating the big bang, a thing that is not written literally in the creation story, he believes in literal creationism, but a literal creationist wouldn't believe something that isn't literally written in the Bible story.

There are other types of Creationists than Christians though. So on factual grounds your argument is wrong there. He literally believes in a specific type of creation story, it doesn't matter that it's not in the Bible. Apparently you also believe in a very specific type of creation story: Where the God created the Big Bang. That's okay. But it's still a creation story.

I am sorry if this just some misunderstanding.

It's ok, and it's probably a misunderstanding, and i'm sad to say, on your part.

And I think OP's point is that the creation story is a metaphorical explanation of how evolution works (with the implication that the old priests actually knew about evolution) - there are some similarities between the creation story and evolution theories (snakes used to have legs like in the creation story, some of the order of creation fits the order we theorize evolution happened etc.). But I agree that there are too many inconsistencies, it's more likely that the story is just a myth.

Yes but all this makes his point meaningless in the context of Creationism vs Evolution. Both are defined pretty clearly. If it's just metaphor or allegory, then it's not really a comment about Creationism vs Evolution at all.

It's more like Creation story + the vernacular usage version of the world "evolution" that can be applied to things such as abstract contexts that have nothing to do with biology. For example, some people say that people's understanding of the sciences is "evolving" but that's not the same usage this forum is concerned with.

TLDR: If the OP is making a metaphorical point, then he simply doesn't really have a debate of Creationism vs Evolution. That is all i'm saying. And i do feel the context of this forum refers to biological evolution.

 

[Etritonakin]

isn't evolution in the bible? adam and eve ate the forbidden fruit and evolved in another state than they were originaly. doesn't the bible clearly say they evolved?

Contrary to the beliefs of some, the bible does not address when or how life came to exist on Earth initially -except that God is generally responsible.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. That is perhaps the most vague statement ever.
Immediately after that, it is written that the Earth BECAME/HAD BECOME waste and ruin -at an unspecified time, to an unspecified degree and due to a cause not specified there. No amount of time is specified between the initial completion of the Earth (at which all the sons of God shouted for joy in Job) and it's becoming waste and ruin.

However, Satan was in Eden with Adam and Eve -and had already turned a third of the angels for whom he was responsible against God, had rebelled, warred with God's forces and been cast back down to earth, after he decided to "ascend above the heights of the clouds" and "be like the most high".

So... The state of the Earth was likely due to the activities and neglect of "the angels which kept not their former estate".

The creatures "created" in Genesis were part of a renewal of Earth in preparation for man. They are described as being created directly -as is Adam.

However, other verses indicate Adam and his line were not the only humanoids on Earth (Cain finding a wife elsewhere and fearing that any who found him would kill him, etc.).

What is interesting is that Eve was made from material from Adam.

Adam and the creatures created in Genesis could also have been made referencing previously-existing "material" (DNA, etc.) of humanoids and animals which already existed or had existed.

In the broadest sense, evolution is development -and God is himself described as developing in various ways. Creating a system which produced creatures which adapted to / developed according to their environment -"after their kind" -is definitely a possibility. It removes the need for direct micromanagement and also produces infinite variety.

Creation and evolution are parts of the same whole. Creation evolves, evolution creates, a creator develops itself as it develops creations, etc.

 

[Audie]

Contrary to the beliefs of some, the bible does not address when or how life came to exist on Earth initially -except that God is generally responsible.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. That is perhaps the most vague statement ever.
Immediately after that, it is written that the Earth BECAME/HAD BECOME waste and ruin -at an unspecified time, to an unspecified degree and due to a cause not specified there. No amount of time is specified between the initial completion of the Earth (at which all the sons of God shouted for joy in Job) and it's becoming waste and ruin.

However, Satan was in Eden with Adam and Eve -and had already turned a third of the angels for whom he was responsible against God, had rebelled, warred with God's forces and been cast back down to earth, after he decided to "ascend above the heights of the clouds" and "be like the most high".

So... The state of the Earth was likely due to the activities and neglect of "the angels which kept not their former estate".

The creatures "created" in Genesis were part of a renewal of Earth in preparation for man. They are described as being created directly -as is Adam.

However, other verses indicate Adam and his line were not the only humanoids on Earth (Cain finding a wife elsewhere and fearing that any who found him would kill him, etc.).

What is interesting is that Eve was made from material from Adam.

Adam and the creatures created in Genesis could also have been made referencing previously-existing "material" (DNA, etc.) of humanoids and animals which already existed or had existed.

In the broadest sense, evolution is development -and God is himself described as developing in various ways. Creating a system which produced creatures which adapted to / developed according to their environment -"after their kind" -is definitely a possibility. It removes the need for direct micromanagement and also produces infinite variety.

Creation and evolution are parts of the same whole. Creation evolves, evolution creates, a creator develops itself as it develops creations, etc.

Are you saying all this as fact, or, opinion?

 

[Milton Platt]

the story isn't to be taken literally. it describes in a mythological tale the evolution of humans.

Please show your source for this. And I don't mean quote someone who agrees with you.....show the actual evidence for the claim.

 

[Milton Platt]

Contrary to the beliefs of some, the bible does not address when or how life came to exist on Earth initially -except that God is generally responsible.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. That is perhaps the most vague statement ever.
Immediately after that, it is written that the Earth BECAME/HAD BECOME waste and ruin -at an unspecified time, to an unspecified degree and due to a cause not specified there. No amount of time is specified between the initial completion of the Earth (at which all the sons of God shouted for joy in Job) and it's becoming waste and ruin.

However, Satan was in Eden with Adam and Eve -and had already turned a third of the angels for whom he was responsible against God, had rebelled, warred with God's forces and been cast back down to earth, after he decided to "ascend above the heights of the clouds" and "be like the most high".

So... The state of the Earth was likely due to the activities and neglect of "the angels which kept not their former estate".

The creatures "created" in Genesis were part of a renewal of Earth in preparation for man. They are described as being created directly -as is Adam.

However, other verses indicate Adam and his line were not the only humanoids on Earth (Cain finding a wife elsewhere and fearing that any who found him would kill him, etc.).

What is interesting is that Eve was made from material from Adam.

Adam and the creatures created in Genesis could also have been made referencing previously-existing "material" (DNA, etc.) of humanoids and animals which already existed or had existed.

In the broadest sense, evolution is development -and God is himself described as developing in various ways. Creating a system which produced creatures which adapted to / developed according to their environment -"after their kind" -is definitely a possibility. It removes the need for direct micromanagement and also produces infinite variety.

Creation and evolution are parts of the same whole. Creation evolves, evolution creates, a creator develops itself as it develops creations, etc.

For your other premises to stand up, you must first show sound evidence that a god exists. Until that is done, there is no use in discussing what a god has or has not done.

 

[Etritonakin]

Are you saying all this as fact, or, opinion?

It is factual inasmuch as the definitions of words in scripture state, allow and suggest -when I refer to scripture.

For example... if you look up the definitions associated with "The earth was formless and void" -specifically "was" -and see that it allows for "had become" -the meaning of the statement changes.

"all this" is many things -but if you would like to be more specific, I would.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is factual inasmuch as the definitions of words in scripture state, allow and suggest -when I refer to scripture.

For example... if you look up the definitions associated with "The earth was formless and void" -specifically "was" -and see that it allows for "had become" -the meaning of the statement changes.

"all this" is many things -but if you would like to be more specific, I would.

You do realize that at no time were there only two people, don't you? How does your interpretation of Genesis handle that?

 

[Darkstorn]

You do realize that at no time were there only two people, don't you? How does your interpretation of Genesis handle that?

With incest. Lots and lots of incest.

 

[Etritonakin]

You do realize that at no time were there only two people, don't you? How does your interpretation of Genesis handle that?

Adam was the first to be created in the image of God -and the possibility of immortality began with him. He was the first "man" by biblical definition -not scientific definition.

When Cain left Eden, he went and found a wife in Nod -and was afraid of what others would do to him.
This does not indicate that the writer believed only four people existed at the time.

Also, the "sons of God" as opposed to the "daughters of men" does not refer to angels (who are not given in marriage) having sex with humans -but more logically refers to Adam's line mixing with those humans who lived outside of Eden.

The bible does not state that the Earth is only 6,000 years old -and suggests otherwise in other places.
That is the estimated time of Adam's creation given the genealogies in the bible.

The earth had become waste and ruin to an unspecified degree before being renewed in preparation for Adam's line.

It is only an assumption that it was the original creation and was devoid of all life.
As Satan was in Eden -after he ascended and warred against God -and that rebellion involving beings with extreme power was put down -the Earth is certainly older than assumed according to scripture -and that rebellion was likely the cause of the state of waste and ruin.

What is assumed to be the initial creation of the sun, moon, etc. literally describes relative positioning of celestial bodies.
Beings with the ability to alter the juxtaposition of celestial bodies may seem like fantasy, but we are gaining such abilities ourselves -though they are not integral to our bodies/interface.

Many read the bible with assumptions already in their mind -but reading what it actually says -acknowledging what the language allows -is very different.

There is also much that the bible does not say -and assuming it is meant to be a complete account is error.

(Also, please read my post before that post -the part about pre-existing material. Creation is not necessarily direct, but it can be -and even if it is, it can be based on previously-developed designs/data, etc.)

 

[syo]

Please show your source for this. And I don't mean quote someone who agrees with you.....show the actual evidence for the claim.

it's symbolic because if it was literal it would be false. ''adam'' is male humans and ''eve'' is the females. the priests created the story because they wanted to describe reality with a myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Adam was the first to be created in the image of God -and the possibility of immortality began with him. He was the first "man" by biblical definition -not scientific definition.

When Cain left Eden, he went and found a wife in Nod -and was afraid of what others would do to him.
This does not indicate that the writer believed only four people existed at the time.

Also, the "sons of God" as opposed to the "daughters of men" does not refer to angels (who are not given in marriage) having sex with humans -but more logically refers to Adam's line mixing with those humans who lived outside of Eden.

The bible does not state that the Earth is only 6,000 years old -and suggests otherwise in other places.
That is the estimated time of Adam's creation given the genealogies in the bible.

The earth had become waste and ruin to an unspecified degree before being renewed in preparation for Adam's line.

It is only an assumption that it was the original creation and was devoid of all life.
As Satan was in Eden -after he ascended and warred against God -and that rebellion involving beings with extreme power was put down -the Earth is certainly older than assumed according to scripture -and that rebellion was likely the cause of the state of waste and ruin.

What is assumed to be the initial creation of the sun, moon, etc. literally describes relative positioning of celestial bodies.
Beings with the ability to alter the juxtaposition of celestial bodies may seem like fantasy, but we are gaining such abilities ourselves -though they are not integral to our bodies/interface.

Many read the bible with assumptions already in their mind -but reading what it actually says -acknowledging what the language allows -is very different.

There is also much that the bible does not say -and assuming it is meant to be a complete account is error.

(Also, please read my post before that post -the part about pre-existing material. Creation is not necessarily direct, but it can be -and even if it is, it can be based on previously-developed designs/data, etc.)

I am just trying to clarify your interpretation of the Bible. I know that there are countless different interpretations of the Bible and that there are many different a ways that people ty to get around the fact that we are the product of evolution.

On a related note how do you interpret the Noah's Ark myth?

 

[Milton Platt]

it's symbolic because if it was literal it would be false. ''adam'' is male humans and ''eve'' is the females. the priests created the story because they wanted to describe reality with a myth.

How do you know this to be true? What is your source for knowing who wrote the story and what their intent was?

 

[Etritonakin]

I am just trying to clarify your interpretation of the Bible. I know that there are countless different interpretations of the Bible and that there are many different a ways that people ty to get around the fact that we are the product of evolution.

On a related note how do you interpret the Noah's Ark myth?

I read the bible with as open a mind as possible -read what it actually says with as few preconceptions as possible -check definitions of the words to see what they allow, etc.

From our own human example, evolution (development in its broadest sense and also DNA-based evolution) and creation are parts of the same whole. We are creative -and are at least partly a product of evolution. We can create directly, and we can create design programs similar to DNA-based evolution -which are themselves designers which are not themselves self-aware. We can also direct the course of our own evolution creatively.

The fact that we are a product of evolution does not mean there was no creative input into our existence. Why would it be impossible for man to have "evolved" (and evolution can be tweaked at any time as our example indicates) before Adam -and for Adam to also have been directly created for a specific purpose? How would that present itself in existing DNA? Was existing DNA/material used? Perhaps tweaked a bit? What would the DNA of a directly-created human look like if existing DNA was not used?

I'unno!?!?


An all-powerful God is logically more likely to have developed -evolved, if you will, than simply always existed as the same complex creator -and as that God created would be developing himself.

We readily accept that self-awareness and creativity develop "naturally" in microcosm, so why do we not accept the possibility that "everything" is/was/became self-aware? Why would it be different at that level?

Why should creativity and evolution be at odds when both exist as parts of the same whole?

As for the flood, no God capable of such things = a bunch of lies.
If no God is assumed, why think about it any more?
As for what is written, much is assumed just as much is assumed about Genesis.
It is also not to be considered a complete account even if completely true.
It says some things, but some things which people believe are not even written.

Does it actually say that every life form from all over the globe -unclean two by two and clean by sevens -made their way to the ark? No.
Does it say that the flood killed every other life form on the globe not on the ark? No.
(Man was the specifically-targeted life form)
Does it say that God caused all that is written to happen and left the rest to evolution afterward. No.
Were the animals left to make their own way back around the globe after being brought to the ark which isn't even written? No.
Would the flood actually described -and that which is specified and not specified -leave the evidence people assume? Depends who you talk to -what they believe about what it says -and all of the evidence is certainly not in.

If what is written literally means that only 8 humanoids existed after the flood (which I have not yet fully studied or considered) on the entire Earth, I would not know how that might be shown in DNA -what Noah's family's DNA was like in the first place, etc. -and, again, would not simply assume the account to be complete as far as God's activities afterward were concerned.

I'll just ask God when I see him (technically God is all we see) -because it is such a huge subject.

It is written that our bodies will be changed to be similar to that of the "glorious" body of the Word who created all things in the first place and is able to subdue all things unto himself, so if we are later of such composition and ability we will see things much differently.

Increased knowledge.... More powerful interface.... Invulnerable body... Talk about fitness to survive!

 

[syo]

How do you know this to be true? What is your source for knowing who wrote the story and what their intent was?

it's a religious text so most possible priests wrote it. and it can't be literal. how on earth can it be literal?

 

[David T]

I'm not sure you understand what evolution means.

Well catholics and Baptists always disagree.

 

[David T]

Gotcha.



Problem: Evolution isn't exactly symbolic. So i think it's your mistake in thinking symbolic + literal should mix to begin with.

Not to mention this is the Evolution vs Creationism forum. Creationism is NOT symbolic. It's literal.

so what darwin wrote is not evolution itself but a narrative about evolution.