Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Terminology Tuesday: Theistic Evolutionism

Theistic Evolutionism: An understanding of the development of life on earth that arose out of the attempt to relate the interpretation of Genesis to the scientific theory of organic evolution by taking a nonliteral view of the creation account while wholeheartedly trusting its truthfulness as the Word of God. Theistic evolution teaches that while the various species emerged throughout the evolutionary process, God superintended the development of life. That is, evolution was the means that God used in bringing about the divine purpose of creating life on this planet. Theistic evolutionists generally maintain the classical Christian doctrines of creation, original sin and human depravity in need need of redemption.1

1. Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki & Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 112.


thelovingjudge said...

According to an article by Discovery Institute
( http://www.discovery.org/a/10091 ):

"Second, many theistic evolution proponents repudiate traditional Christian teaching about the original goodness of creation and its subsequent “Fall.” According to Karl Giberson in Saving Darwin, human beings were flawed and sinful from the very start because they were produced by an evolutionary process driven by selfishness. Thus, there was no “Fall” from original goodness in the history of humanity. The foreword to Giberson’s book was written by fellow theistic evolutionist Francis Collins."

So yes, I guess you could say a theistic evolutionist believes in original sin, but as caused by God. And to me that makes quite a difference from what Genesis 3 would tell us.

Ex N1hilo said...

That goes to the heart of the problem with the theistic evolution position, thelovingjudge. And the result is that it overturns the gospel.

Most theistic evolutionists (that I have encountered anyway) also regard Adam and Eve as mythological archetypes, not as literal historical persons.

The position of theistic evolution cannot be arrived at by exegesis of the text of scripture. I'm not aware that any of its proponents even attempt to do so.

Jeremiah Duomai said...

I endorse evolution. But I don't like the term "theistic evolution" or "theistic evolutionist". I prefer "Biologos" or "evolutionary creation". It does not take one to believe in evolution to endorse or reject idea of "original sin". There are Biologos proponents who agree with the idea of "original sin" and there are those who disagree with it.

Jeremiah Duomai said...

Those who endorse evolution like Tim Keller or John Stott prefer to historical Adam. Others who endorse evolution like John Polkinghorne and Alister McGrath prefer non-historical figure. Denis Alexander has given in his book different options. Endorsing evolution does not lead one to accept non-historical Adam over historical Adam or vice versa.

thelovingjudge said...

Evolution presupposes death. Death is what drives any kind of evolution. And when people try to incorporate this idea into theology it just becomes messy no matter what you do.

Jamie Pellew said...

I don't understand why Christians attempt to force an idea like evolution into the Bible. There is amazing support for a young earth. Why is it we believe in the miracles through out the Bible, yet we do not trust God's word for the creation account?

I agree with thelovingjudge. The Bible is completely clear on the account of creation. 6 literal days, of 24 hour periods. When you attempt to force billions of years into the mix, that is when you get problems.

I believe the creation is probably somewhere around 10,000 years old. This also takes alot of the gusto out of the debate against atheists who see God as some indifferent being with his arms folded watching creation over the last 4 billion years and only deciding 2000 years ago to enter into humanity.

Jeremiah Duomai said...

The biblical text does not allow me to necessarily conclude that the creation is some 10,000 years old. The scientific evidences as well do not lead me to such conclusion. Gen 2.4 reads, "... In the day (yom) that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens...(RSV)". This sums up what happened all throughout the six days. So the word "yom"/ day in the Bible cannot always mean 24 hour duration.

The Bible never ever says that death of any kind was absolutely absent before the Fall.

Jamie Pellew said...

Jeremiah, you are correct that the word day does not always mean an actual 24 hour period. So when does the word day mean day? Why is it that the only place in the old testiment we have difficulty believing the word day as a 24 hour period is in Genesis 1.

Anytime in the old testiment where the word day is used with either a number, or evening, or morning, it always means a literal day. Always.
What we find in Genesis is morning, evening, number, day. It is used over 350 times outside of Genesis and each and every time it means a literal day.

Gen 2:4 is a perfect example of this. We do not see evening, morning, or number.

Also, for you to say the Bible never says there was no death of any kind before the fall leads me to point out that this view puts death BEFORE sin. How could Adam and Eve be standing on millions of years of dead things, and yet God pronounce His creation to be "very good".

The evidence for a young earth is absolutely overwhelming. I believe we decide to try and fit fallen mans "billions of years" into an infallible word of God.

Ex N1hilo said...

Jeremiah Duomai wrote:
The Bible never ever says that death of any kind was absolutely absent before the Fall.

Not in so many words. However, it does say that, before the fall of Adam, the animals were all vegetarians. (Genesis 1:30)

I'd like to see the “evolutionary creationists” attempt to fit this observation into the Theory of Evolution.

Jeremiah Duomai said...

I can’t accept ‘day’ as always meaning a 24 hour duration because text like Gen 2.4 does not allow me to read it that way. However, I accept the Genesis 1 use of “days” of creation as 24 hour duration. I do not however subscribe to Young Earth Creationism.
I am an evangelical Christian. And many leading evangelical Christian publishers like Bible Speaks Today series commentary of Genesis by Michael Wilcock, Word Bible Commentary of Genesis by Gordon Wenham, Tyndale OT commentary of Genesis by Derek Kidner, IVP Dictionary of Pentateuch, NIV Study Bible etc take the framework view where the days are not taken chronologically. This view takes day 1 to correspond to day 4, day 2 to day 5 and day 3 to 6. Thus the age of the earth becomes very flexible in this view as the Bible is silent about it. I therefore refer to Science for the age of the earth.
If God used death of non-human life in Gen 1 to fulfill his end purpose I can see it as “good”. I don’t see how death of , say, fungi to fulfill God’s purpose be considered not good. All life forms in this planet is carbon based. The cabbage we eat, the fish we fry etc are all carbon based life. So whether it’s we eating plant or plant eating insects or insects eating another insect or man eating fish or lion eating deer it’s all one carbon based life eating another carbon based life. Lion eating deer is quite normal. Even animal activist won’t say that lion should not eat deer cos it’s not good. This, however, leads us to the next question posed by Ex.
The question of death of an animal is not to be answered only by those who endorse evolution but by progressive creationists too. Progressive Creationists also believe in death before the Fall. I think this question can be answered by using the interpretative principle of accommodation. It’s not new. John Calvin used it during his times. I am sure YEC will also use this principle to explain Gen 1.6 (check out the Hebrew meaning of firmament).
Do you think on the sixth day, in that 12 hours (from 6 am to 6 pm) God made all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air (Gen 2.19) and all the reptiles ( 1.25).Then God brought them all to Adam and Adam gave names to ALL the livestock, the birds of the air and ALL the beasts of the field. The Adam fell sleepy and God made Eve his ribs. Do you think Adam could name ALL the animals and birds in less than 12 hours?

Jamie Pellew said...

Jeremiah - If citing sources of those who disagree with an old earth proves anything let me know, because I can cite hundreds who do not subscribe to the millions and billions of years.

If you look at the text as it is, look at the original Hebrew, and compare that against the language that is used throughout the book of Genesis, and the Old Testiment, you will see that over 350 times in the old testiment, the way the word day is used, when it mentions an evening, morning, or a number, it always has meant literal day.

You said, "If God used death of non-human life in Gen 1 to fulfill his end purpose I can see it as “good”." Jeremiah, when you study the text in Genesis, it is clear that the fall of man is what caused death. The fall is what caused the curse. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22

You said, " I therefore refer to Science for the age of the earth." What you just said is that the infallable word of God, is not infallable. One who reads the Bible, would not come away thinking billions of years and evolution. It is simply not in the Bible. Where does this idea come from? Secular scientists. Many of whom disagree with an old earth due to the overwhelming amount of evidance.

As far as your question on day 6, and asking about 12 hours is concerned, you are the one who set a time limit of 12 hours, then somehow decided that was truth.

I do believe that Adam could name the animals in a 24 hour period. First of all, animals were named after their "kind". It does not say that Adam had to name each species. This greatly reduces the number of animals that he would have to name. What's more is, God's word said it.

Look at the work weak. The 7 day weak. We have a pattern for a 24 hour day, we have a pattern for a year (sun relation to earth), where does the pattern for a 7 day work week come from?
Exodus 20:11

Do you really think we are supposed to work 6 million years then take a break?

Jeremiah Duomai said...

I would be happy to read the works of those leading publishers and scholars who disagree with such interpretation. I am not a Hebrew scholar myself and so I referred to the work of recognised Hebrew scholars on the subject. I don't think you read my post quite well or if even if you read it you missed out something important. I said I prefer the framework view. I cannot give a detailed explanation here.

Can you any name any reputed Hindu or atheist astrophysicist or geologist from a well known recognised university with sound academic credential who say that the earth is some 10,000 years old? I referred to Science for the age of the earth cos my understanding of Genesis does not lead me to any conclusion about the age of the earth. For me Genesis text does not contain information about the age of the earth or universe.

I said 12 hours (roughly 6 am to 6 pm) cos at 3 am it's still dark. And in Hebrew reckoning Sabbath starts on sunset of the sixth day. So by 7 pm it's kind of dark and Sabbath has begun. If you interpret the text in literalistic sense you have to say it's all the "kinds". You know how many "kinds" are there in the world?

I am not quite happy with taking Exodus text to support YEC because there we find 7 days and then 7 years and then 7 times 7 for the Jubilee years. So a more complex theological message is going on there. Actually I don't agree with so many ways in which YEC use the text.

I agree that Scripture is infallible. But YEC's interpretation is fallible. And I find YEC's interpretation misleading in so many ways.

Jeremiah Duomai

Jeremiah Duomai said...

The death in 1 Corinthians refers to death of man, not that of animals or plants. The context says it all.

Jamie Pellew said...

Hi Jeremiah - I am not sure why you would ask for a hindu or an atheist with those credentials, but here is a link to over 180 scientists in just about EVERY field who agree with the Biblical account of the creation narrative found in the Bible.

You said, "For me Genesis text does not contain information about the age of the earth or universe." The truest part of this statement is when you say "for me". No where would you get millions of years or billions of years in the text of Genesis.

As far as the naming of the animals goes, look at the creation account. We have God who said let there be light before the sun was created. God Himself is light. So I doubt God would have been worried as the sun went down. He is God.

Now as far as the text from Exodus, you may not like what it says. But it says what it says. It is one of the commandments to keep the sabbath day. This is where the 7 day weak comes from.

You then said, "The death in 1 Corinthians refers to death of man, not that of animals or plants. The context says it all."

This is what the text says - "21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. "

It says by man came death. Complete death. The wages of sin is death. Your arguing out of silence. You are citing for evidence what the Bible does NOT say, instead of what it DOES say.

That is a dangerous way to argue. The Bible does not explicitely say that leprichons aren't running around. Should I then make the leap to assume that they are? Absolutely not.

My challenge to you is this, find me where the Bible says millions or billions of years. Find me where we cannot take the word day, FOLLOWED by evening, morning, or a number that did not represent an actual day. Did Jonah spend 3 days in the whale? Or 3 million years?

It is not the young earth creationists interpretation of the scripture you have a problem with it seems, it sounds like the issue is letting the scripture speak for itself. Why is it that Christians believe in Moses and the parting of the sea, the pillar which he followed, the miracles throughout the Exodus, and the Old Testiment, the resurrection, the healings throughout the new testiment, yet when it comes to a literal 6 day creation, you say, "well God couldn't have done that".


Jeremiah Duomai said...

If God is the author of the word and the world then there should not be contradiction in what these two "texts" say. Our interpretation of the "texts" may go wrong though.

When you said "who agree with the biblical account of creation narrative..." it seems to portray me as one who disagrees with the biblical account. I don't disagree with the biblical account. It's that I disagree with the interpretation. I think it's better to avoid this kind of rhetorical tactic in this discussion. I can also use such tactic as make my opponent appear heretic.

I asked for a view of Hindu or atheist because YEC read the Bible and their particular way of reading the Bible coloured their doing of Science as well. I said the Bible is silent on whether the earth is 6,000 or 4.5 billion years. For that I go to Science. I am not claiming that the Bible teaches the earth to be billion years old.

The naming took place on the sixth day.

You accused me of arguing from silence. Of course I argued from silence because I did not want to derive teaching which the Bible does not claim. I see your point as deriving too much from the text which in fact the text was not even claiming. And this is a dangerous way to do.

"For in Adam all die so in Christ all will be made alive". I say this refers to human being, not all plants and mosquitoes and bacteria and so on. Even when Christ returns Scripture never says that all mosquitoes and leeches and scorpions and so on will be made alive. What the text says is humans will be made alive. You are deriving too many points from the text. I am deriving only that which the text claims i.e human.

Jamie Pellew said...

You ignored my challenge. My arguments still stand and were never addressed.

You asked for Hindu or YEC views and I sent you a list of 183.

You are telling me you are not arguing from silence, yet said "The Bible never ever says that death of any kind was absolutely absent before the Fall.". Ok. If this is not reading into the text what is it? Again I ask you to show me where it DOES say there is death before sin. Show me where it DOES.

Your talk about mesquitos or plants is something you are saying here, not me. I never claimed they have a soul.

If you can show me from scripture, where it says there was death BEFORE sin, and if you can show me why the compelling evidence of young earth creation is false, I will be all ears.

I prefer to believe what the Bible says. If you add up the geneologies and the dates in the bible you get somewhere around 6,000. The only way to find millions or billions of years is to listen to secular science. God says He created man, evolution claims a cosmic fart did by accident.


Jeremiah Duomai said...

Well, I can't find the link you said you gave. But whether the link is given or not I am well aware that there are many Christians who think that the earth is only some 6,000 years old. But most Christians do not think that way.

You said, "If this is not reading into the text what is it?" I cannot understand what you are trying to say here.

But where does the Bible also say that non-human was there before the Fall? Mosquitoes and plant are non-human and that's why suggested that their death could be there. If the Bible says that even their death was not there I am willing to go for it. But I don't find that in the text.

Why do you say secular science? Why can't you just say Science? After people from all background pursue Science. Evolution does not even say God did it nor does it say God does not do it. It is silent about WHO did it. And as a Christian I would say that God did it.

Richard Kloosman said...

I have heard for years all the arguments some make concerning evolution and the Bible. The arguments did not really change much. However what all arguments against a literal reading of Genesis do have in common is that it is reading into (read adding to) what the Bible say. At one point in the history of science the age of the earth was estimated to be less than 100000 years, it was also calculated to be 96 million years at one stage. If we would use the logic of the old earth creationists then the Genesis account would have been reinterpreted to fit those estimations, only to change to 4.6 billion years. Therefore what evolutionary scientists say is used to reinterpret the Bible and then used to re-reinterpret the Bible. So much then for infallibility of the Bible and Biblical authority.

God says " Gen 1:14 ESV "And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years"

Radiometric dating is obviously not there, so cannot be used for dating, but since the earth turns around its axis within 24 hours, we can deduce that God says the days are 24 hours and since the earth goes around the sun for an earth year, we can use that to calculate years. God gave us a hermeneutic to use. Days, seasons, years. Not millions, not even thousands. Why, because Adam was the first man and he was the man who started the count for humanity as it were.

A problem that comes up here is the fact that if there were millions of years before day four, there would be millions of years without a sun. If that is not bad enough, God says that He “Gen 1:16 And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars (is that sequence?).Gen 1:17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth (is that where God made the sun and “set” it where it is?).

What is my point? What God said He done and what fallible man says happened is in compatible. How can you have the earth before the sun this just do not fit the “big bang theory”. How can a sun form just like that and be set so that it would be beneficial to the planet which came before it? Only by an Almighty God!!!

We either should believe the Bible (read what God said) or not. It is that simple. If you can’t… I do not know what recourse you have. Jesus said “John 17:17 ESV Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” The Truth of God is incompatible with the conjecture of man we should really face up to that and stop undermining the Word of God with foolishness like “the big bang” and “evolution”

Why can’t some Christians believe the Word? “But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;” It is evident that some think what the Word plainly says (read proper exegetical reading) is foolish, since they believe what fallible men teach, I know the scripture I alluded to relate to salvation, but it can also relate to this old earth/young earth debate and evolution.

God says “1Co 1:20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”

Yes, the wisdom of this world relating cosmology is “the big bang” and relating biology it is “evolution”. Therefore both are foolishness since God does not teach us that we came from apes and that the sun comes before the earth.

Neal Korfhage said...

Haven't read others comments yet, but it seems to me in relating to the whole debate of theistic evolution that theistic evolution itself seems neither very theistic nor distinctly scientific.

And interestingly enough in all the conversations I've had with skeptics evolution hasn't come up as a deal breaker when it comes to the truthfulness of Christianity. I believe even James Sire tries to avoid the topic completely in discussions with skeptics since the issues touches on so many different fields of study.

All that being said I agree with JP Moreland when he states that even if evolution is true it does not follow logically that God does not exist. Evolution (if true) only demonstrates how I got my human body. An alternative explanation is not refutation.

MaryLou said...

I recently listened to an interview with Greg Koukl at Issues, etc. on the topic of theistic evolution. He addressed the question of whether evolution and theism can legitimately be blended. He said it depends on how we define those words.

As he put it, If we define evolution in its strict Darwinian sense, that is, that it is an unguided process of natural selection, then how could it possibly be theistic? He then went on to say that, if we insert God into the picture, then we're no longer talking about evolution in the Darwinian sense, and we end up with intelligent design, not evolution.

That interview is here:


As for the days in Genesis 1, I also recently listened to a Straight Thinking podcast in which T. David Gordon (a Bible scholar, not a scientist) insisted that the days couldn't be 24-hour periods because the sun and the moon weren't even created until the fourth day. As he put it, if the days were measured, it had nothing to do with the earth's rotation vis-à-vis the sun. He then went on to list numerous examples where the word "day" did not refer to a solar day.

That interview is here:


I an interested in hearing people's thoughts on both of these matters.

The Janitor said...


I think Greg Koukle has some good insights into theistic evolution. I especially like his leprechaun example. Are often oblivious to how ridiculous their position appears both to atheists and other Christians.

As for the days issue, I find that to be an empty argument. An ordinary day *length* does not require the ordinary day *measuring mechanism*. So suppose that I usually measure my day by use of my wrist watch. (Indeed, most time measurements today are not primarily sun/moon based.) Suppose, if you want, that I was given this watch at birth and always taught to measure time by it. One day, after having the watch for some 30 years, I lose it. Does this mean I can no longer designate a 24 hour period? Does the concept of a day suddenly become meaningless? Of course not.

This has always seemed to me to be a desperate attempt by old earthers to find something, anything, to undercut exegesis of a regular length day.

Soon I'll be posting some argument maps and a transcript of a debate between two old earth creationists (Hugh Ross, Ken Samples) and two young earth creationists (Andy MacIntosh, Stephen Lloyd) that gets into some exegetical reasons for and against ordinary days of creation. You may want to take a look at that. It does include this argument about there not being a sun, but it also includes other points against an ordinary day that you may or may not find persuasive.

Kenneth said...

Theistic Evolution: An Incoherent and Inconsistent Worldview, From Answers In Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v5/n1/theistic-evolution-incoherent-inconsistent-worldview

Ex N1hilo said...

Recently on a White Horse Inn podcast (which I usually love) they discussed Darwinian Evolution as a stumbling block to faith in Christ. The view expressed by all the panelists on the show was that belief in Darwinism need not hold one back from faith; and that faith ought not hold one back from believing in Darwinism.

They kept repeating the statement that "As Christians we need to admit that here is nothing in Darwinian Evolutionary theory that makes it inconsistent with theism."

Now, I must admit: the statement is true. It is also irrelevant to the discussion.

There truly is nothing in Darwinism that makes it incompatible with idolatry.

But that is very different from saying Darwinism is compatible with the word of God. It is not. If Darwinism is true; the Gospel is false. If the Gospel is true, Darwinism is false.

Anonymous said...

If one wanted to hear the most compelling case for a young earth, who should they listen to?

anonymous said...

If evolution and God are incompatible then you might as well give up God because there is an abundance of evidence for evolution and none for God.

The Janitor said...


Check out Dr. Stephen Lloyd's opening speech in his debate with Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Ken Samples. His debate partner was Dr. Andy MacIntosh. But I suggest that speech in particular because it's so good and it's what you don't usually hear from popular caricatures of YEC. I'll have some argument maps and an analyses of that debate on my website soon (maybe next two days--I'm pretty busy right now).

Joseph Pipa's article in "Did God Create in 6 Days?" is good. I've been reading a little bit of the book "Old-Earth Creationism on Trial" by Tim Chaffey and Jason Lisle too. I wasn't expecting much from that book, but so far I've been impressed at how well they do at debunking some very common Old Earth talking points.

Besides that, I would say just check out some of the more sophisticated young earth creationists like Todd C. Wood (he's written some books and just started a new Core Academy where he is offering a free course on the historical Adam if you sign up by a certain date), Leonard Brand (Faith, Reason, & Earth History), Paul Garner (New Creationism), etc.

Most people are only familiar with YEC through "sloppy" and low-level organizations. Some of that is by design: it's easier to knock down low-hanging fruit and so these are the guys that get the attention. Some of that is because the less sophisticated YEC ministries are the most popular because most people don't want difficult complex answers but easy black and white answers.

But in my opinion sorting through the old earth-young earth debate requires thiking through a lot of issues in philosophy of science. It gets down to how you weight and relate science to exegesis and hermeneutics. For most OEC, it comes down to the reigning scientific paradigm having so much weight that YEC can only be laughed at and not seriously considered. When someone ask for a compelling case for YEC they want simple, clear scientific evidence that won't be ignored by the majority of current scientists. If that's what you're looking for, then none of the above recommendations will give that to you. But I would say you're asking the wrong question. You've got the wrong starting point, but maybe Dr. Lloyd's speech could point you in a better direction.

The Janitor said...


They are probably following Alvin Plantinga's framing of the issue in his book, Where the Conflict Really Lies.

I think *if* Plantinga is correct that unguidedness is not a part of Darwinism just as such and if Plantinga is correct that belief in a young earth (and some other things, like maybe special creation of Adam) is not part of Christianity just as such then he is correct that Darwinism and Christianity are compatible. So if all that is correct then the folks at WHI would be correct to.

Of course, that's a big "if". Frankly, I don't find Plantinga's case very persuasive. I'm sure he is right that Darwinism can be understood in a guidance sense, though I don't really get why he thinks guidance is part of Christianity just as such. There are a lot of other points that could be discussed, but this isn't the place and I don't have the time.

MaryLou said...

I'm looking forward to watching that debate, Janitor. Thanks!

Yesterday I listened to a discussion with C. John Collins from Jonathan Morrow's Thinking Christianly and found it interesting:


I also listened to a discussion on evolution some time ago with the guys at The Whitehorse Inn and a scientist whose name totally escapes me now. However, I do remember that one of them made the comment that, if science and Genesis don't jive, then our understanding of one or the other or perhaps both is incorrect. I agree with that.

The Janitor said...


You can get audio of the debate here: http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={E0E337F0-020C-4FB3-AACC-8A87996207C0}

I think you can get the video by ordering the DVDs here (but I'm really not sure): http://www.premier.org.uk/dvd

I have some argument maps and analsys of the debate on my site, which you should be able to get to by clicking my name.

Richard Kloosman said...

Anonymous Said
"If evolution and God are incompatible then you might as well give up God because there is an abundance of evidence for evolution and none for God"

Unfortunately anonymous there is no evidence for evolution. Please do not bring up what some call microevolution because that is not evolution at all but built in genetic variation in an original design.

For any so called "proof" of evolution, there is better explanations to show that design and variance of the original design should be the preferred interpretation. Microbe to man evolution, that is just fantasy. God created man and every living thing for that matter.

You asked for proof of God, well how did everything start. I think we make too much an issue about origins. Just two issues needs to be answered, (1) what was the cause for the universe? (2) how did life start on earth? Get those two answers and all this debate and scholarly discussion goes out the window. If things like a universe with galaxies just start as if it is the most natural thing, then the Bible is wrong, if life just happens out of mud, then the Bible is wrong.

But now it does not. I just need to tell you that creation does not verify the existence of God, therefore supposed proof for evolution does not proof that God does not exist. Your no proof for God is not proof that God does not exist, is it? It just mean that you fall into the class of people which Romans 1 describe.

I also see that people have an issue with Adam, therefore when Jesus refers to Adam, does He refer to a mythological person? And when He says that "from the beginning God made them male and female" did He mean millions of years?

I chose to believe the wisdom of God Phd's have all too frequently come up short.

A last thought, for who did Moses write the Pentateuch? Do people really think that he wrote Genesis with the understanding that the Israelites will know that there were billions of years before a mythological Adam? Did the Holy Spirit who superintended over the writing really wanted the Israelites to think that the interpretation of Genesis was a free for all?

We take what Genesis says at face value and with natural exegesis not with a PHd's opinion.

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.

Blog Archive