Evidence of Theistic Evolution in the Bible?

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

The only people that dismiss the theory are devout believers. Their dismissal is based more on faith than science and scholarship.

Not necessarily. The content of the Pentateuch is the hardest to verify because it encompasses the longest time span but it's authorship is not impossible to determine. I hate to keep referring you to the above links I posted but the site's owner explains and answers the JEDP hypothesis in depth. Many supposed problems were shown not to even exist when consulting the original Hebrew.

Second, the Bible itself mentions that Deuteronomy was "found" centuries after Moses supposedly wrote the pentateuch.

How do you know this discovery was specifically Deuteronomy? It is described as "The book of the law." Well, the Jews refer to the entire Torah as "The Laws of Moses." Also, remember what had happened prior to the Babylonian captivity. The Israels hid many of temple artifacts in hidden subterranean cavities below the temple. This is why there is so much contention even today regarding the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and excavation. The Jews want to get down there and dig but the Muslims will not let them. Which leads us to...

Third, the bible describes Ezra as reiterating the Bible to the people. This reiteration had to be the publication of some redaction, canonization, or editing process of the bible.

Actually, it doesn't have to be like that at all. Remember the historical context. The Jews had just returned to Jerusalem after spending 70 years in Babylonian captivity. Because they were allowed to rebuild the temple the Babylonians destroyed 70 years earlier, Ezra helped the Jews get reacquainted with temple procedures and return to Jewish law after being under the authority of Babylonia.

It also shows that many of the returning Jews were the original captives who remembered the old temple and laws. It even mentions many of the Jews born in Babylonia during the captivity deciding to stay there instead of going all the way back to rebuild their ancestor's land. Their attitude was basically why should we leave just to rebuild a city that has no attachment to us? It seems silly to believe Ezra changed the system when the original captives could have exposed him immediately.

Finally, scholars look to differences in the language, grammar, and syntax of the bible. These differences suggest different portions of the bible were written at different times.

We definitely believe the Bible was written over the span of several centuries so I don't quite understand what you are implying. We also believe some books were possibly coauthored by more than one person (Psalms, for instance). Also, the syntax sometimes changes in one book (Isaiah, for instance) because he wrote his book over the course of his lifetime and not all in one sitting. Some believe Daniel did the same thing. This makes perfect sense. Look at the writings of secular historians. They were a single person but looking at their histories will also reveal a switch of style, temperament, and syntax.

Originally posted by AshleyD
don't get intimidated if a new idea cannot immediately fit inside our preconceived notions. Think outside the box.

Thats a bit rich coming from somebody who worships the bible.

you need to open your mind to the possibility the bible is just words, put to paper from the retelling of stories passed down through the ages, and warped into something that is used today for keeping humanity in a perpetual state of indifference and confusion.

its all just astrology.

Originally posted by tombangelta
Thats a bit rich coming from somebody who worships the bible.

The moment I surround my Bible with candles and start singing to it while dancing around in my underwear is the day you'll be remotely correct. Until then, I'd rather worship God... minus the dancing around in my underwear part.

you need to open your mind to the possibility the bible is just words

Or I could go by the internal and external evidence that reveals otherwise.

the retelling of stories passed down through the ages, and warped into something...

You'll have to take this up with the early eye witnesses who testify to the fact most of the New Testament were written by the original eye witnesses and even some of the original apostles. Paul is the exception to an author having witnessed Jesus' life. The Old Testament: The further we go back in time things get harder but not impossible. Fortunately for us the Jews liked to write a lot of stuff down outside the Bible to verify the OT books and their authenticity. Then there's archeology which opens up a whole new world to verify the Bible at least on a historical level.

its all just astrology.

You'll have to prove this.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Paul is the exception to an author having witnessed Jesus' life.

there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

we could debate the existence of god as described in the bible till the end of time. One thing i will say is that there is not one example of how religion has had a lasting beneficial impact on humanity.

Until we cast aside these misinterpreted ramblings, the human race is for want of a better word F*CKED.

Originally posted by tombangelta
there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus

Er... which is exactly what I said and what you quoted.

nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth

Incorrect. Paul never wrote a Gospel (which were only allowed to be written by eye witnesses to Jesus' life or by their scribes) but his epistles do occasionally reference Jesus' life. His focus was more on theology and prophecy.

Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

Like some authors in the Old Testament and John's Book of Revelation, Paul's information came through divine revelation. You can believe it is ridiculous if you like and that is certainly your right. But his epistles harmonize with the eye witness testimony. Even if you completely place his epistles aside, the detailed theology written by eye witnesses in other books still teaches us everything we need to know about salvation.

So we don't derail the thread, there is already a topic about the possibility Paul hijacking Christianity in This thread. I posted a few replies and added in my thoughts to the discussion especially concerning Paul's conversion and theological teachings.

Even though I see where you're coming from, let's stick to the topic at hand. Technically the Jews would have been responsible for Genesis- not Paul or even Christianity that came along centuries later.

we could debate the existence of god as described in the bible till the end of time.

Absolutely. Even if both sides spend the next 20 years day and night collecting all of our opposing evidence, we'd still be left in the same position. Personal choice as to what you believe and what you feel the evidence points to.

One thing i will say is that there is not one example of how religion has had a lasting beneficial impact on humanity.

I could name one example but remember we're only discussing whether or not theistic evolution is mentioned in Genesis. At this moment, I'm not worried about Paul, Deuteronomy, Christianity, Jesus, Ezra, or anything else that has been brought up. Not that I don't care (as I have done my best to answer everyone's questions) but I'd really like to discuss the original post for now.

I have always strongly believed that Evolution is a process of God.

What we have going on today is a highjacking of Christianity etc. by the 'Religious Right' which wants Christians to believe that evolution is a lie etc. They do this because they want Christians to look ignorant to the scientific community and to non-christians.

Well, the truth is, Evolution is a process of life, and God is the embodiment of all life and existence. There is no reason the two can't co-exist. Your explanation of Genesis as being the steady process of evolution guided by Gods hand is exactly as I imagined the process to be. It isn't simply materialist, scientific etc. all life progresses through divine inspirations to become better.

Mankinds mind is a small pisspoor thing of ability in the grand scheme of things.

God doesn't evolve, however "mankind's consept" of "God" will keep evolving until mankind is close enough in beliefs to the reality of "God" on a Universal level.

When the Christ does get back, he'll have some new stuff to teach, but this will make many reject him, as they would rather die in the old religion then live in a new one.

I have not yet read through the thread, but felt compelled to give thanks for the OP. Excellent work.

Organized religion is often just a control mechanism having very little to do with spirituality. I see no reason why evolution and God's will cannot be compatible. In fact, I only see the contrary. Would scientific study even be possible were it not for God's will? Evolutional theory is resisted because of ignorance and fear instilled upon sheep-like followers of manipulative leaders who are the antithesis of the very values they preach.

[edit on 1/12/0808 by jackinthebox]

As the O.P., this is my entire view on the issue:

If the earth was created in six nanoseconds or in six billion years I will still beleive in God. If we were created in one big swoop or a little over time I will still believe in God. If evolution was proven beyond all doubt to be true, I would still believe in God. Period. Nothing can prove God does not exist.

No, I don't think the universe is billions of years old. There is too much scientific evidence to call this timing into question. No, I don't think we evolved over millions of years into completely different species or that the strata took as long as evolutionists think it took for it to form. Changes, adaptations, mutations, and degeneration- most definitely. This is all mentioned in Genesis and has been confirmed by science. Macroevolution is more of a stretch but if it turns out to be proven beyond all doubt (this still has not occurred) then great! I still believe in God.

We are told there was no death prior to the fall but millions of years of evolution would seem to imply there was death prior to the fall. Or we could say animals died but not humans. It doesn't matter. But if this is indeed how it was, then I still believe. If Genesis is literal in terms of six days, then I still believe.

This thread was somewhat of a jovial polemic for those who think that evolution somehow disproves the existence of any supreme being and, more specifically, the Judeo Chrsitian God of the Genesis account. My question is, does it? Nope.

Originally posted by AncientVoid
What are you trying to say? That there's evidence of 'god'? If so please share your information with the world.

What he's saying in that proverb is that you (or anyone else) need only look around at nature to feel the power of God, and be certain that this life is no accident.

Even Einstein felt this. His mistake was to disbelieve in the idea of a personal God.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
I have not yet read through the thread, but felt compelled to give thanks for the OP. Excellent work.

Organized religion is often just a control mechanism having very little to do with spirituality. I see no reason why evolution and God's will cannot be compatible. In fact, I only see the contrary. Would scientific study even be possible were it not for God's will? Evolutional theory is resisted because of ignorance and fear instilled upon sheep-like followers of manipulative leaders who are the antithesis of the very values they preach.

[edit on 1/12/0808 by jackinthebox]

Hi:

I think your concept of the compatibility of religion and science in the mind of the believer perfectly exemplifies that which atheists want you to think. While it is true that many believers are uninterested in science expressed directly to invalidate their worldview (the same interposition of 'faith' on daily life that nontheists fight against religious agendas), it's also true that many believers are very interested in science and research, like myself. I believe this because true science always reveals the wonder of Creation.

Peace,

Xy

reply to post by MajorMalfunction


No. From what I can gather from Ashley's in-depth outline is that she is conveying two issues, creation and evolution; with God in the middle, holding, as it were, one in his right hand, the other in his left hand and He, God, being in the center of both. That is to say, in short, God is in control of both and uses each to work out the progression that we struggle to understand.

Originally posted by kaiheitain
What he's saying in that proverb is that you (or anyone else) need only look around at nature to feel the power of God, and be certain that this life is no accident.

So how does the power of god feel like and how do you know its god? I've been asking this question so many times without any response. How do you know your feeling the power of god?

Originally posted by kaiheitain
Even Einstein felt this. His mistake was to disbelieve in the idea of a personal God.

How did you know what Einstein felt?
Mistake? Are you up your self?

we could debate the existence of god as described in the bible till the end of time.

Actually you've got far less time than that.

One thing i will say is that there is not one example of how religion has had a lasting beneficial impact on humanity.

Simply because people choose not to follow the teachings of Jesus.

Until we cast aside these misinterpreted ramblings, the human race is for want of a better word F*CKED.

What exactly is it in the teachings of Jesus you think we'd be better off without? No love thy neigbour, forgiveness, love your enemies, look after the poor, no adultery, no respect, let him without sin cast the first stone, or something else. Seems to me this world is screwed because people choose not to follow these teachings, but what would you suggest we do?

reply to post by AshleyD



God doesn't evolve, but hopefully over time the minds of a creature will evolve over time to comprehend better the truest nature of God.

After all, that's the upmost Goal, and it will not be achieved in this lifetime.

Upon the Christ's Return, there will be those in religion not believing in the returned christ because he will have a "new" message. The next stage. The next step in the understanding and achievement.

Don't think for one moment mankind would have been able to, many thousands of years ago, understood the consepts of God that the highest front runners in understanding have.

We, mankind now, are still far away from truly comprehending "God". This is the point.

EVOLUTION EXISTS BECAUSE DNA EXISTS! It's simple as that! We have fruits and vegetables today that were not in existence decades ago! Did they materialize through Divine creation? In a way they did: through MAN'S CREATIVE GENIUS, made possible by the DNA that exists in all living things! THE DNA DIRECTS EVOLUTION. Genesis itself describes evolution in the same sequence that modern science has come to conclude:
First: Plants in the form of ALGAE (To convert CO2 into OXYGEN which humans would later need to breathe). These developed into seed-bearing plants.
Second: The primordial soup ("Let the waters be alive with a swarm of living creatures...")
Third: Primitive birds of the air.
Fourth: "God created great sea-monsters (Dinosaurs)..."
Fifth: "cattle, creeping things and wild animals..."
Sixth and lastly: MAN!
THIS IS A DESCRIPTION OF HOW THINGS EVOLVED! But as any honest scientist would admit, THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS!

Originally posted by Legalizer

Any good combination of legumes makes meat a complete non-necessity.

Poor little legumes crying out loud while beeing eaten in combination by a great meaty heartless monster.

Originally posted by Ameneter

Genesis itself describes evolution in the same sequence that modern science has come to conclude:
First: Plants in the form of ALGAE (To convert CO2 into OXYGEN which humans would later need to breathe). These developed into seed-bearing plants.
Second: The primordial soup ("Let the waters be alive with a swarm of living creatures...")
Third: Primitive birds of the air.
Fourth: "God created great sea-monsters (Dinosaurs)..."
Fifth: "cattle, creeping things and wild animals..."
Sixth and lastly: MAN!
THIS IS A DESCRIPTION OF HOW THINGS EVOLVED! But as any honest scientist would admit, THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS!

Exactly how I see it. This is a description of the evolutionary period in the bible. And, if you can see something other than a creation in six 24 hour periods, you have my believe system. Actually, since science is pretty much "on to" the age of the universe and the earth itself, we can surmise that the timeline described in Genesis is a timeline to more or less describe the order of creation rather than the number of days it took. God doesn't use time and doesn't need it. The 24 hour time periods were probably the only way the ancients could understand and/or convey their understanding of it to others.

DNA and whatever DNA is made of are the building blocks of life. Blocks require someone or something to put them together. A house doesn't build itself.

While the above evolutionary process obviously exists, it does not explain how the original building blocks came into being. Personally, I believe (and I'm not just pulling this out of my hat here, I've looked really hard at it) there was a big bang which was caused by a creator who then processed each tiny morsel of matter and energy to cause the process of the creation period. And controls it still.

This, to me, is theistic evolution.