Creation and Evolution Compatible

[Tom Larkin]

I am a Christian who believes the Bible is the Word of God. I also work in Biotechnology and have a Masters in Biochemical Engineering and I am very familiar with the science behind evolution. After studying the Bible for quite a while, I noticed some consistent patterns and would like to propose that the events of Genesis are sequential and that the men and women created in Chapter one of Genesis were created before Adam and Eve in Chapter 2, which would eliminate the contradiction between the Bible and evolution, the sequence of Chapter 1 is consistent with the evolutionary sequence. My argument below:

Given: if you reject any of these "givens" then let's start another post so we don't stray from the point

G1 - the Bible is the word of God (the current 66 books)

G2 - any scripture must be interpreted in light of all scripture, no scripture may be "privately interpreted"


Evidence:

E1: The creation in chapter1 describes the creation of the universe from the Big Bang (let there be light - initially photons only existed prior to even atoms) the creation of the universe, the creation of the stars, earth moon, sea life, plants, animals and humans.

E2: Creation of Chapter 2 describes the creation of Adam, the Garden and the animals.

E3: Throughout the book Genesis, the geneology of the line not leading to Jesus is always given first. This is consistent throughout the book including Seth, Shem, Isaac, Jacob, etc.

E4: In Genesis 6, it states the "sons of God" saw the "daughters of men" and saw that they were fair and took them as wives, but Noah was perfect in his generations.

E5: In 1 Cor and in Romans, Paul states we are born in "corruptible seed" through Adam and sown in incorruptible seed through the second Adam, Jesus.

E6: All men and women alive today are descended from a common most recent ancestor who was alive when other men and women were alive (Nature 6Aug13 among many other sources)

E7: The are many occurrences in the Bible where the same story is retold from a different perspective (Kings and Chronicles) or to a different audience (the four Gospels)

E8: A lack of archaeological evidence does not prove that something did not exist (e.g. both King David and the city of Troy were thought to be myths until evidence of their existence was uncovered)

Discussion:

D1: The purpose of Genesis 1 is consistent with the rest of Genesis in that the line not leading to the Messiah is given before the line leading to the Messiah.

D2: The men and women of Genesis 1 are consistent with the "daughters of men" described in Chapter 6

D3: The creation described in Genesis 1 is not contradictory to our understanding of the evolutionary process.

D4: Noah was described as being "perfect in his generations" which means he was a direct descendent of Adam and Eve.

D5: Through Noah, we are all descended from Adam.

D6: The creation events in Genesis 1 and 2 are very different in order of creation, in what had already existed and even in the reason for creation of men and women (Genesis 1 - let's make man in Our image", Genesis 2 - "there was no one to till the ground"

Conclusions:

C1 The Creation accounts Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential, which is consistent with the genealogies in the book of Genesis and with Genesis 6.

C2 The account in Genesis 1 is not inconsistent with science, having Adam and the garden created after other men and women eliminates the conflict with evolution (men and women in chapter 1 followed the evolutionary process as is consistent with the order).

C3 We are all descended from Adam through Noah as he was "perfect in his generations", so this is consistent to the references to Adam in the New Testament.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

What am I allowed to do in this thread beyond saying ‘that’s a very nice op’ ?

I assume if I share my thoughts on the subject it becomes a debate?

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

Depends the initial approach to Creation in the first place, as not all Christians (or Jews) take Genesis literally - which Scientists and hard-atheists conveniently forget.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Yes, if not literally ( how I approach it ), then Genesis and evolution go hand in hand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Depends the initial approach to Creation in the first place, as not all Christians (or Jews) take Genesis literally - which Scientists and hard-atheists conveniently forget.

Actually in a debate atheists quite often point out how not all Christians, not even most, take Genesis literally. In debating creationism versus evolution their target is usually the literalists.

And quite often the literalists will claim that those Christians that do not interpret the Bible literally are not "real Christians". I have never seen an atheist make that claim.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

Actually in a debate atheists quite often point out how not all Christians, not even most, take Genesis literally. In debating creationism versus evolution their target is usually the literalists.

And quite often the literalists will claim that those Christians that do not interpret the Bible literally are not "real Christians".

Yep, it's quite an issue

I have never seen an atheist make that claim.

About evolution, you mean?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep, it's quite an issue



About evolution, you mean?

No, I have never seen atheists claim that Christians that are not literailsts are not true Christians. That is a claim, once again, that I have only heard from those that interpret the Bible literally.

 

[socharlie]

I am a Christian who believes the Bible is the Word of God. I also work in Biotechnology and have a Masters in Biochemical Engineering and I am very familiar with the science behind evolution. After studying the Bible for quite a while, I noticed some consistent patterns and would like to propose that the events of Genesis are sequential and that the men and women created in Chapter one of Genesis were created before Adam and Eve in Chapter 2, which would eliminate the contradiction between the Bible and evolution, the sequence of Chapter 1 is consistent with the evolutionary sequence. My argument below:

Given: if you reject any of these "givens" then let's start another post so we don't stray from the point

G1 - the Bible is the word of God (the current 66 books)

G2 - any scripture must be interpreted in light of all scripture, no scripture may be "privately interpreted"


Evidence:

E1: The creation in chapter1 describes the creation of the universe from the Big Bang (let there be light - initially photons only existed prior to even atoms) the creation of the universe, the creation of the stars, earth moon, sea life, plants, animals and humans.

E2: Creation of Chapter 2 describes the creation of Adam, the Garden and the animals.

E3: Throughout the book Genesis, the geneology of the line not leading to Jesus is always given first. This is consistent throughout the book including Seth, Shem, Isaac, Jacob, etc.

E4: In Genesis 6, it states the "sons of God" saw the "daughters of men" and saw that they were fair and took them as wives, but Noah was perfect in his generations.

E5: In 1 Cor and in Romans, Paul states we are born in "corruptible seed" through Adam and sown in incorruptible seed through the second Adam, Jesus.

E6: All men and women alive today are descended from a common most recent ancestor who was alive when other men and women were alive (Nature 6Aug13 among many other sources)

E7: The are many occurrences in the Bible where the same story is retold from a different perspective (Kings and Chronicles) or to a different audience (the four Gospels)

E8: A lack of archaeological evidence does not prove that something did not exist (e.g. both King David and the city of Troy were thought to be myths until evidence of their existence was uncovered)

Discussion:

D1: The purpose of Genesis 1 is consistent with the rest of Genesis in that the line not leading to the Messiah is given before the line leading to the Messiah.

D2: The men and women of Genesis 1 are consistent with the "daughters of men" described in Chapter 6

D3: The creation described in Genesis 1 is not contradictory to our understanding of the evolutionary process.

D4: Noah was described as being "perfect in his generations" which means he was a direct descendent of Adam and Eve.

D5: Through Noah, we are all descended from Adam.

D6: The creation events in Genesis 1 and 2 are very different in order of creation, in what had already existed and even in the reason for creation of men and women (Genesis 1 - let's make man in Our image", Genesis 2 - "there was no one to till the ground"

Conclusions:

C1 The Creation accounts Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential, which is consistent with the genealogies in the book of Genesis and with Genesis 6.

C2 The account in Genesis 1 is not inconsistent with science, having Adam and the garden created after other men and women eliminates the conflict with evolution (men and women in chapter 1 followed the evolutionary process as is consistent with the order).

C3 We are all descended from Adam through Noah as he was "perfect in his generations", so this is consistent to the references to Adam in the New Testament.

I am a Christian who believes the Bible is the Word of God. I also work in Biotechnology and have a Masters in Biochemical Engineering and I am very familiar with the science behind evolution. After studying the Bible for quite a while, I noticed some consistent patterns and would like to propose that the events of Genesis are sequential and that the men and women created in Chapter one of Genesis were created before Adam and Eve in Chapter 2, which would eliminate the contradiction between the Bible and evolution, the sequence of Chapter 1 is consistent with the evolutionary sequence. My argument below:

Given: if you reject any of these "givens" then let's start another post so we don't stray from the point

G1 - the Bible is the word of God (the current 66 books)

G2 - any scripture must be interpreted in light of all scripture, no scripture may be "privately interpreted"


Evidence:

E1: The creation in chapter1 describes the creation of the universe from the Big Bang (let there be light - initially photons only existed prior to even atoms) the creation of the universe, the creation of the stars, earth moon, sea life, plants, animals and humans.

E2: Creation of Chapter 2 describes the creation of Adam, the Garden and the animals.

E3: Throughout the book Genesis, the geneology of the line not leading to Jesus is always given first. This is consistent throughout the book including Seth, Shem, Isaac, Jacob, etc.

E4: In Genesis 6, it states the "sons of God" saw the "daughters of men" and saw that they were fair and took them as wives, but Noah was perfect in his generations.

E5: In 1 Cor and in Romans, Paul states we are born in "corruptible seed" through Adam and sown in incorruptible seed through the second Adam, Jesus.

E6: All men and women alive today are descended from a common most recent ancestor who was alive when other men and women were alive (Nature 6Aug13 among many other sources)

E7: The are many occurrences in the Bible where the same story is retold from a different perspective (Kings and Chronicles) or to a different audience (the four Gospels)

E8: A lack of archaeological evidence does not prove that something did not exist (e.g. both King David and the city of Troy were thought to be myths until evidence of their existence was uncovered)

Discussion:

D1: The purpose of Genesis 1 is consistent with the rest of Genesis in that the line not leading to the Messiah is given before the line leading to the Messiah.

D2: The men and women of Genesis 1 are consistent with the "daughters of men" described in Chapter 6

D3: The creation described in Genesis 1 is not contradictory to our understanding of the evolutionary process.

D4: Noah was described as being "perfect in his generations" which means he was a direct descendent of Adam and Eve.

D5: Through Noah, we are all descended from Adam.

D6: The creation events in Genesis 1 and 2 are very different in order of creation, in what had already existed and even in the reason for creation of men and women (Genesis 1 - let's make man in Our image", Genesis 2 - "there was no one to till the ground"

Conclusions:

C1 The Creation accounts Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential, which is consistent with the genealogies in the book of Genesis and with Genesis 6.

C2 The account in Genesis 1 is not inconsistent with science, having Adam and the garden created after other men and women eliminates the conflict with evolution (men and women in chapter 1 followed the evolutionary process as is consistent with the order).

C3 We are all descended from Adam through Noah as he was "perfect in his generations", so this is consistent to the references to Adam in the New Testament.

Nachmanides explained that only thing God created Ex Nihilo was elementary particle of matter that contained blueprint of everything to be...and similarly Fabre d'Olivet translation of Genesis 1 explains that everything created in Genesis 1 is in principle as a plan.

 

[Skwim]

Evidence:

E1: The creation in chapter1 describes the creation of the universe from the Big Bang (let there be light - initially photons only existed prior to even atoms) the creation of the universe, the creation of the stars, earth moon, sea life, plants, animals and humans. Okay.

E2: Creation of Chapter 2 describes the creation of Adam, the Garden and the animals. And except for Eden, so does Gen.1:20-27.

E3: Throughout the book Genesis, the geneology of the line not leading to Jesus is always given first. This is consistent throughout the book including Seth, Shem, Isaac, Jacob, etc. Taking your word for it.

E4: In Genesis 6, it states the "sons of God" saw the "daughters of men" and saw that they were fair and took them as wives, but Noah was perfect in his generations. Q. Why are the males called "sons of God" while the females called "daughters of men"? Any real significance?

E5: In 1 Cor and in Romans, Paul states we are born in "corruptible seed" through Adam and sown in incorruptible seed through the second Adam, Jesus. Okay.

E6: All men and women alive today are descended from a common most recent ancestor who was alive when other men and women were alive (Nature 6Aug13 among many other sources) Okay.

E7: The are many occurrences in the Bible where the same story is retold from a different perspective (Kings and Chronicles) or to a different audience (the four Gospels) Yup.

E8: A lack of archaeological evidence does not prove that something did not exist (e.g. both King David and the city of Troy were thought to be myths until evidence of their existence was uncovered) Obviously.

Discussion:

D1: The purpose of Genesis 1 is consistent with the rest of Genesis "Purpose"? What do you see as its purpose?

in that the line not leading to the Messiah is given before the line leading to the Messiah. Okay-?

D2: The men and women of Genesis 1 are consistent with the "daughters of men" described in Chapter 6 What do you mean by "consistent"?

D3: The creation described in Genesis 1 is not contradictory to our understanding of the evolutionary process. Of course it is.

D4: Noah was described as being "perfect in his generations" which means he was a direct descendent of Adam and Eve. Other than yourself, who says so? Not all translations use the word "perfect." Others use "good," "righteous," "just," "moral and exemplary," "a man of integrity," and some say nothing at all.

D5: Through Noah, we are all descended from Adam. So the tale goes.

D6: The creation events in Genesis 1 and 2 are very different in order of creation, in what had already existed and even in the reason for creation of men and women (Genesis 1 - let's make man in Our image", Genesis 2 - "there was no one to till the ground" I'll take your word for it.

Conclusions:

C1 The Creation accounts Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential, which is consistent with the genealogies in the book of Genesis and with Genesis 6. In what way are they consistent?

C2 The account in Genesis 1 is not inconsistent with science, Yes it is. having Adam and the garden created after other men and women eliminates the conflict with evolution No it doesn't (men and women in chapter 1 followed the evolutionary process as is consistent with the order). No it isn't

C3 We are all descended from Adam through Noah as he was "perfect in his generations", so this is consistent to the references to Adam in the New Testament. That's how the story goes. Now what?

Truthfully, I don't see how your conclusions are a consequence of any reasoning based on your evidence or discussion.


.

 

[Katzpur]

Without getting into the specifics, I agree with you that there is absolutely no reason why a devout Christian who believes that God created our universe cannot also believe the findings of science. I'm truly glad that my own religion doesn't require me to make a choice between the two.

 

[Phantasman]

Actually in a debate atheists quite often point out how not all Christians, not even most, take Genesis literally. In debating creationism versus evolution their target is usually the literalists.

And quite often the literalists will claim that those Christians that do not interpret the Bible literally are not "real Christians". I have never seen an atheist make that claim.

I agree. Jesus even said that Moses did not get his bread (knowledge) from heaven. The books where Jesus corrects the OT myths are the ones the catholics omitted in order to use the Torah for purposes of (physical) control. Jesus tells John that it was him who convinced Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Because the flesh and soul wasn't enough to be saved.

John:
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Corinthians:
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

The catholic orthodox will do what they can to hold onto the same ideas that gave the Pharisee's their power. When Jesus said "it is finished", the Pharisee's (priests) lost their power (veil). In 325AD, it was once again repaired, and the book (Bible) created.

From what the gospels say, I dropped the OT years ago. Along with Hebrews. Marcion was on the right track.

My thoughts.

 

[Deeje]

I would like to address some of the points here but since this is a discussion forum, I will put some counter points in an appropriate forum.

 

[shunyadragon]

What am I allowed to do in this thread beyond saying ‘that’s a very nice op’ ?

I assume if I share my thoughts on the subject it becomes a debate?

Well, ah . . . I reject the givens as compatible with the science of evolution and origins of our universe, and life. It takes considerable jerry rigging, jerry mandering, duct tape and baling wire to get from ancient Babylonian, Canaanite, and Ugarit mythology to the science of abiogenesis, evolution and the science of the cosmological origins of our universe.

 

[user4578]

the men and women created in Chapter one of Genesis were created before Adam and Eve in Chapter 2

Aside from linking Genesis chapter one to chapter two, Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6 clearly counted the heretofore mentioned subjects as referring to the same people, in his collating of Genesis 1:26-27 with Genesis 2:24.

 

[siti]

E4: In Genesis 6, it states the "sons of God" saw the "daughters of men" and saw that they were fair and took them as wives, but Noah was perfect in his generations.

Q. Why are the males called "sons of God" while the females called "daughters of men"? Any real significance?

Weren't the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 supposed to be angels? And didn't their supposed liaisons with "daughters of men" produce a hybrid race of god/man giants called the "nephilim"? And that being the case, what the devil does that have to do with the compatibility of creation and evolution?

 

[Skwim]

Weren't the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 supposed to be angels? And didn't their supposed liaisons with "daughters of men" produce a hybrid race of god/man giants called the "nephilim"? And that being the case, what the devil does that have to do with the compatibility of creation and evolution?

Boy, I've never come across any chapter and verse that says so. If there is one, please share.

.

 

[siti]

I believe the Hebrew phrase bene ha elohim (approx.) is used in Genesis 6 - this is the same as the phrase used in Job 1:6, Job 2:1 and (without the definite article ha) Job 38:7...I think it is pretty clear that these three uses of the term are referring to angels and traditionally, the Church (Fathers) seemed (mostly but not all of them, admittedly) to favour that view. The other view is that "Sons of God" referred to the "pure" line of Seth's descendants whereas the "daughters of men" referred to female descendants of Cain. Either way, I can't see how it helps to establish the compatibility of evolution and creation.