Why are Christians embracing Evolution?

[DLH]

That does NOT say that the seventh day goes on forever.

Again, nothing about a thousands of years long "seventh day".

He is NOT taking about CREATION.

Those three references were introducing the day of rest, the 7th day. In order to show that God's rest wasn't a literal rest and continue with the next reference that says the seventh day wasn't a literal day.

Again, nothing here describes an "ongoing seventh day".

You are so into your false doctrine that you are seeing things that are not there.

What do you think Hebrews 4:1-11 is saying regarding the 7th day? God would not afterward have spoken of another day. So there remains a sabbath-rest for the people of God.

 

[Right Divider]

Those three references were introducing the day of rest, the 7th day. In order to show that God's rest wasn't a literal rest and continue with the next reference that says the seventh day wasn't a literal day.

Your logic is illogical.

The seventh day sabbath was a day of rest ONCE A WEEK (i.e., repeated every week).
It was a picture of the ultimate rest in Christ.

What do you think Hebrews 4:1-11 is saying regarding the 7th day? God would not afterward have spoken of another day. So there remains a sabbath-rest for the people of God.

Again, the WEEKLY day of rest pictured a FUTURE PERMANENT rest for the nation of Israel.

Note also that Jews were circumcised on the EIGHTH day.

 

[DLH]

Your logic is illogical.

The seventh day sabbath was a day of rest ONCE A WEEK (i.e., repeated every week).
It was a picture of the ultimate rest in Christ.

Again, the WEEKLY day of rest pictured a FUTURE PERMANENT rest for the nation of Israel.

Note also that Jews were circumcised on the EIGHTH day.

The seventh day that you are talking about, the Sabbath, was modelled after the seventh day that I'm talking about; the original. God's day of rest, not man's.

What do you think Hebrews 4:1-11 is saying regarding the 7th day? God would not afterward have spoken of another day. So there remains a sabbath-rest for the people of God.

 

[DLH]

So when God says He stretched the heavens, what do you think it means?

Just what it says. He stretched, or spread, or laid out the physical heavens.

Beyond this, the beginning of Genesis doesn't require reading between the lines as you seem to be suggesting. What yom means is determined by context. Yes, this has been mentioned repeatedly, but you still have not given any evidence why "evening and morning" does not determine the context of a single earth rotation.

I'm not reading between the lines, I'm examining the original Hebrew and its overall scriptural harmony.

 

[DLH]

- On Day Four the sun and moon were to rule over the day and night, virtually mandating literal days 4, 5, and 6

Yeah. That's nonsense.

For an understanding of my perspective on the chapter, see [Moderator Edit: link removed, violation of Rule 8.]

- The Day Three plants needed the Sun of Day Four to survive therefore Day 3 could be hours but not years long

Again, this makes no sense to me.

- Each of the six Days have ordinals 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., which are typically used with literal and not figurative days

Jesus is the last Adam. (1 Corinthians 15:45). Because one was compared to, modelled after in some sense, the other doesn't alter the first. There was a literal day in the creation. There would have been many literal days if, as I suggest, the creative days, which are periods of time when God prepared the already created physical heavens and earth, weren't literal days. It's simple. The Hebrew yohm means both. Literal or figurative.

- Each of the six Days have evening and morning descriptions typically used with literal and not figurative days

Not the seventh.

- The 7th Day sabbath model is that God made the heavens, earth, and seas and everything in them in six days

What is a day? Define day.

- The purpose of Genesis carefully listing the ages of the patriarchs was for calculating the years since creation

No it wasn't. It was to establish a genealogy for the appearance of the messiah. You can't determine the years of the creation from the Bible.

- Jesus said that God created Man at the beginning of, that is, not not long after, creation (Mk. 10:6; etc.)

The terms are relative. It's not long until the coming of God's kingdom, it wasn't long 2,000 years ago when Jesus walked the earth.

- Lucifer in the Garden of Eden hadn't yet fallen, no suffering or thorns yet till after "everthing was very good" on Day Six

I feel like I'm arguing against multiple people and I have no idea what they are talking about because I don't know what their position is and what they are saying makes no sense.

Lucifer? Lucifer is a Latin word that means light bearer. It's applied to Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian dynasty at Isaiah 14:4, 12. I agree that there were no thorns.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yeah. That's nonsense.

For an understanding of my perspective on the chapter, see

When you come back, explain it here, please. Linking to other forums on TOL is not allowed.

 

[Right Divider]

The seventh day that you are talking about, the Sabbath, was modelled after the seventh day that I'm talking about; the original. God's day of rest, not man's.

That God rested on the seventh day does NOT mean that the "seventh day" lasts forever.

What do you think Hebrews 4:1-11 is saying regarding the 7th day? God would not afterward have spoken of another day. So there remains a sabbath-rest for the people of God.

I believe that the "sabbath rest" has to do with trusting Christ for His work and not their own.

It does NOT mean that the seventh day goes on forever.

 

[Idolater]

What?! I don't think I am, if I understand what you are saying exactly. Does "the world" look old to me? No. The terms for earth and world are varied, though. Strictly speaking there are, among others, two distinct differences for what is sometimes called the world and the earth. Both words are applied in different ways, but generally the world is the system of things of which Satan is the god. It was founded upon the blood of Abel. The world is the systems of society. Commerce, politics, religion. The world is only 6,000 years old and it will be destroyed. The earth was created to and will last forever. How old does it look? I have no idea. It could look to be old or young. I don't care what it looks like to me. The topic is evolution, and thus the age of the earth and heavens. How they look to me I don't consider relevant. HOWEVER, the Bible indicates the earth is quite possibly very old. Light speed concurs. I have no reason to doubt it.

Light speed does not in any way corroborate the claim that the earth is very old (viz., beyond let's say 6000 years). Not unless you're begging the question. Which is what I was saying you were doing in the first place.

 

[Idolater]

Michael, a spirit being in heaven who later came to Earth as the man Jesus.

Yeah, no.

 

[Stripe]

Guess what? The Bible does indeed also say six days can be billions of years.

No, it doesn't.

In fact, the passage you seem to be referring to implicitly endorses the Biblical timeline.

Watch:

2 Peter 3 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Which boiled down says: Heed what the Bible says, not what people who deny it say. And your proclamation that a day can mean a million years is to hyper-literalize what is quite obviously a metaphorical phrasing that means "God is patient."

That you can get this so wrong is clear evidence that nothing you claim should be treated with any seriousness.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yeah, no.

Good catch. I didn't see that.

 

[Derf]

Good catch. I didn't see that.

and @Idolater

Interestingly, there's a margin note in the Geneva Bible that agrees with DLH. You probably already know that the Geneva Bible was an entire English translation produced in Switzerland around the time of the Reformation (John Calvin was still alive and in Switzerland) by English refugees running away from the Catholic Mary Tudor (known as "Bloody Mary"). According to this website:

The Geneva Bible was at the foundation of the American Colonies. It was the Bible used in Jamestown and the preferred Bible of the early Pilgrim settlers of New England. The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the leading English writers John Bunyan, William Shakespeare, and John Milton.​

The Geneva Bible was a fore-runner to the KJV, and it was probably the reason for King James' authorization of the KJV, because many of the margin notes seemed to deny the king's full authority to do whatever he wanted.

On the possible identification of Michael with Jesus...
These are all the verses that mention Michael by name:
[Dan 10:13, 21 KJV] But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. ... But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and [there is] none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.
[Dan 12:1 KJV] And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
[Jde 1:9 KJV] Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
[Rev 12:7 KJV] And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Jude 1:9 is particularly interesting because it parallels a story in Zechariah, where "the LORD", wanting to rebuke Satan says "the LORD rebuke thee", which is an awkward wording, and is usually counted as support for the Trinity in the Old Testament:
[Zec 3:1-2 KJV] And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: [is] not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

When compared with Jude 9, and coupled with dispensational thought on the "body of Christ" as opposed to the "body of Moses" (or the Jews under the law), you can see where someone might get the idea that Michael is really Jesus Christ. The only thing that prevents us from going along with it is the title "archangel".

How many archangels are there in the bible? Only Jude 9 identifies one with a name (although the NLT carries that association back into Daniel 12:1 to replace "the great prince"), and it's Michael. Catholics find 7 in their various extra-biblical works, but let's ignore that for now.

I can't really see any problem with identifying Michael with Jesus Christ, but I'm hesitant to do so, for the same reasons as you, probably--it sounds like a degradation of Jesus. But if "archangel" means "head of the angels", and there is only one, then it is an appropriate title for Jesus.

One more thing. Which of the angels ever sit in the presence of God? Gabriel told us he stands in God's presence: Luke 1:19. Dan 12:1 tells us Michael will "stand up" (meaning he will be sitting and change to standing, I suppose) at the time of Jacob's trouble and deliver Daniel's people. Stephen, as he was being stoned, saw Jesus standing up

[Act 7:55 KJV] But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God​

yet Jesus said He would be sitting at the right hand of God:

[Luk 22:69 KJV] Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.​

Why would He stand up? Stephen was in trouble, and it sounds like he was given a vision of Jesus standing up to deliver. Back to Dan 12:1, Michael is described as the one "which standeth for the children of thy people".

I'm not sure...I'd hate to jump right in if it's blasphemous, but the evidence is actually fairly strong. However, if it's Jesus, then it wasn't just some spirit being in heaven that later became Jesus--it was the Son of God, LORD, as shown in Zech 3:1-2.

 

[Rebel for truth]

Theistic evolution is just another way to get around Gods truth of Creation, and substituted it with mans ideas and theories. Yet we have these Christians believing that God used evolution to create annuls numerous Bible teachings...

Their is a rising number of Christian scholars and leaders that are increasingly advocating theistic evolution to explain creation, but the dilemma is that Christians cannot accept theistic evolution unless they annul many of their Bible-based fundamental beliefs. Theistic evolution, the belief that God used processes of evolution to create, implies at least believing “an account of origins at odds with the biblical record of history,” said Geoscience Research Institute scientist Timothy Standish. It also implies, he added, introducing the presence of death before sin, or at least defining death in different ways before sin and after sin.

Thus Christians, “cannot embrace theistic evolution without exhibiting extraordinary duplicity and naiveté,” Standish said.

The questions may be asked, why do many confessed Christians not see a conflict between the work of a Creator God and evolution? Why are they embracing evolution without a second thought?

This is a very old thread but maybe someone will read it.

God called the Earth to bring forth plants and greenery.
God called the waters to bring fourth fish and life in the waters.
God called the Earth to bring forth beast and cattle on the land.
Anyone ever notice that God called the earth and the waters to bring forth life.

No one knows the process God used. And because evolution and creation does coincide with each other: first the heavens (big bang) - then the Earth - then the plants - then marine life - then land animals - lastly man. The only difference is in science says this sun was first, in scripture the sun was created on the 4th day. Scientifically, the Earth and the sun are roughly the same age a billion years apart by their estimation. That is probably a reason why some Christians think God use the process of evolution at least in all life on earth except man.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This is a very old thread but maybe someone will read it.

It may be an old thread, but it's not dead yet.

God called the Earth to bring forth plants and greenery.
God called the waters to bring fourth fish and life in the waters.
God called the Earth to bring forth beast and cattle on the land.
Anyone ever notice that God called the earth and the waters to bring forth life.

Yes. The same way He created life elsewhere.

No one knows the process God used.

Agreed.

And because evolution and creation does coincide with each other:

They don't.

first the heavens (big bang) - then the Earth - then the plants - then marine life - then land animals - lastly man. The only difference is in science says this sun was first, in scripture the sun was created on the 4th day.

Actually, "Science" doesn't say anything. Scientists however (if they can even be called that) say lots of things. But that doesn't make those things correct.

God made. Not the big bang.
God made. Not evolution.
God made. Not time.

Scientifically, the Earth and the sun are roughly the same age

Correct.

a billion years apart by their estimation.

Incorrect.

Who is "they"?

Not science, that's for sure.

Because scientifically, the earth is no more than 10,000 years old.

That is probably a reason why some Christians think God use the process of evolution at least in all life on earth except man.

Some Christians think God used the process of evolution because they've been duped by people who hate God, and try to make "the science" fit with the Bible.

I'm not anti-science, as all science confirms what the Bible says.

What I am against is people who claim the Bible doesn't really mean what it says when it clearly states that God created the heavens and the earth and the seas and all that is within them within six days.

What's more, is that Jesus Himself said this:

But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ - Mark 10:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark10:6&version=NKJV

 

[Stripe]

The Bible leaves no room for evolution.

 

[Clete]

This is a very old thread but maybe someone will read it.

God called the Earth to bring forth plants and greenery.
God called the waters to bring fourth fish and life in the waters.
God called the Earth to bring forth beast and cattle on the land.
Anyone ever notice that God called the earth and the waters to bring forth life.

No one knows the process God used. And because evolution and creation does coincide with each other: first the heavens (big bang) - then the Earth - then the plants - then marine life - then land animals - lastly man. The only difference is in science says this sun was first, in scripture the sun was created on the 4th day. Scientifically, the Earth and the sun are roughly the same age a billion years apart by their estimation. That is probably a reason why some Christians think God use the process of evolution at least in all life on earth except man.

Anyone who thinks such a thing isn't a Christian and might as well throw their bible into the river and feed some microbes with it.

It doesn't work, Rebel. If you're actually interested in truth, you need to forget about trying to believe in the Big Bang and Evolution, both of which are so full of holes that even millions of atheistic scientists reject them as hopelessly flawed, never mind Christians!

Its impossible to keep track of all the ways in which they've turned both into unfalsifiable nonsense. Both theories are just religious beliefs at this point. There just isn't any need at all to try and reconcile either of them with the bible any more than it would make sense to try to reconcile the bible with the Qur'an or the Diamond Sutra.

Obviously, there's a lot more to say here but I'm out of time for this morning. Suffice it to say that if you're a Rebel for truth then just make sure the emphasis is on the truth, not the rebellion. In other words, any intellectually honest search will yield a mountain of evidence that proves neither the Big Bang nor Evolution to be worth rescuing by anyone, much less a Christian. Here's a place to start...

RSR's List of Not so Old Things

Evidence Against the Big Bang Theory

 

[Rebel for truth]

It may be an old thread, but it's not dead yet.



Yes. The same way He created life elsewhere.



Agreed.



They don't.



Actually, "Science" doesn't say anything. Scientists however (if they can even be called that) say lots of things. But that doesn't make those things correct.

God made. Not the big bang.
God made. Not evolution.
God made. Not time.



Correct.



Incorrect.

Who is "they"?

Not science, that's for sure.

Because scientifically, the earth is no more than 10,000 years old.



Some Christians think God used the process of evolution because they've been duped by people who hate God, and try to make "the science" fit with the Bible.

I'm not anti-science, as all science confirms what the Bible says.

What I am against is people who claim the Bible doesn't really mean what it says when it clearly states that God created the heavens and the earth and the seas and all that is within them within six days.

What's more, is that Jesus Himself said this:

But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ - Mark 10:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark10:6&version=NKJV

Biblically: in the beginning God created the "heavens" - God said let there be "light" Genesis 1:3 the first day
Scientifically: according to Einstein before the big bang there was "nothing" - the big bang singularity occurred and there was a burst of "light"

Biblically: in God's creation of the heavens dividing the waters and firmaments Genesis 6 through 8 the second day
Scientifically: matter this from The big bang begin to form

Biblically: God created the Earth and said let the Earth bring forth grass Genesis 9 to 11 the third day
Scientifically: the Earth formed as a result of the big bang billions of years later. Plant life new studies say evolved on Earth first, 700 million years ago

Biblically: God told the waters to bring forth living creatures Genesis 1:20
Scientifically: roughly 650 million years ago sea life formed - studies vary

Biblically: God told the Earth to bring forth beast and cattle after their kind Genesis 1:25
Scientifically: estimated 350 million to 500 million years ago the animals left the sea and came on land.

Biblically: God formed man from the dust of the Earth - he did not tell the Earth to bring man forth God formed man himself Genesis 1:26
Scientifically: man appeared on Earth last just like in God's creation man was last

Scientifically the Earth is dated to be an estimated 4.5 billion years old and the sun and estimated 4.6/7 billion years old
And the water on the earth is said to be older than both.

I would give links to all the above concerning that information but I'm not sure what this site will reject.

At no time did I say science was correct.

But I will say this, science is the knowledge given to man to study what God has already put here. Science has a good idea of establishing timelines as given to man to comprehend.

And you seem to be arguing with me as if I am saying evolution is correct - nowhere in my statement did I say that.

Christians haven't been duped I haven't read any Christian who gave their opinions on evolution state that they don't believe God created everything. What they say is evolution could be a part of how the process of creation by God was done - all except for man which he formed with his own hands and placed here on Earth in the garden.
And in all honesty we don't know what God did - how God did it or how long it took him to do it - because he is not subject to time like we are - as it is written 2nd Peter 3:8 a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. And when you think about what God told Adam _ that the day he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge he would surely die - Adam did not die in that literal 24-hour day - Adam lived at least 900 more years had sons and daughters and died at the age of 930 years.

There has been for a few centuries and still is an ongoing debate on the correct translation of what yom means in the ancient Hebrew language. Many say it actually means a span of time and not a literal 24-hour.

 

[Rebel for truth]

Anyone who thinks such a thing isn't a Christian and might as well through their bible into the river and feed some microbes with it.

It doesn't work, Rebel. If you're actually interested in truth, you need to forget about trying to believe in the Big Bang and Evolution, both of which are so full of holes that even millions of atheistic scientists reject them as hopelessly flawed, never mind Christians!

Its impossible to keep track of all the ways in which they've turned both into unfalsifiable nonsense. Both theories are just religious beliefs at this point. There just isn't any need at all to try and reconcile either of them with the bible any more than it would make sense to try to reconcile the bible with the Qur'an or the Diamond Sutra.

Obviously, there's a lot more to say here but I'm out of time for this morning. Suffice it to say that if you're a Rebel for truth then just make sure the emphasis is on the truth, not the rebellion. In other words, any intellectually honest search will yield a mountain of evidence that proves neither the Big Bang nor Evolution to be worth rescuing by anyone, much less a Christian. Here's a place to start...

RSR's List of Not so Old Things

Evidence Against the Big Bang Theory

Anyone who thinks such a thing isn't a Christian and might as well through their bible into the river and feed some microbes with it.

It doesn't work, Rebel. If you're actually interested in truth, you need to forget about trying to believe in the Big Bang and Evolution, both of which are so full of holes that even millions of atheistic scientists reject them as hopelessly flawed, never mind Christians!

Its impossible to keep track of all the ways in which they've turned both into unfalsifiable nonsense. Both theories are just religious beliefs at this point. There just isn't any need at all to try and reconcile either of them with the bible any more than it would make sense to try to reconcile the bible with the Qur'an or the Diamond Sutra.

Obviously, there's a lot more to say here but I'm out of time for this morning. Suffice it to say that if you're a Rebel for truth then just make sure the emphasis is on the truth, not the rebellion. In other words, any intellectually honest search will yield a mountain of evidence that proves neither the Big Bang nor Evolution to be worth rescuing by anyone, much less a Christian. Here's a place to start...

RSR's List of Not so Old Things

Evidence Against the Big Bang Theory

I have no idea why you were attacking me in such a hostile manner I'm not a Christian.
At no time in my statement did I say I believe in evolution.
What I did was to give reason why some Christians see the comparison with evolution and the biblical creation - and none of them said that God didn't create everything. What they said was evolution probably, could have been a process that God used in creating almost everything except the creation of man whom God formed with his own hand.
And you have the nerve to tell me I'm not a Christian and you can't even read and understand what was written, if there was God in you you would and wouldn't be so quick to attack you just changed my mind about this site..

 

[Right Divider]

@Rebel for truth
Millions and billions of years is not science.

 

[Clete]

I have no idea why you were attacking me in such a hostile manner I'm not a Christian.

What is it around here that makes people think I'm being hostile!

There was no hostility! There were no insults or anything else of the sort! I didn't post anything in all caps or even use an exclamation point for crying out loud!

At no time in my statement did I say I believe in evolution.

That was the clear implication. Otherwise, where's the need to make the secular theories fit within the biblical framework?

There isn't any such need and that was very obviously the point of your post.

What I did was to give reason why some Christians see the comparison with evolution and the biblical creation - and none of them said that God didn't create everything.

It doesn't matter. People can pick nits all day long but, at bottom, Christianity is NOT compatible with either the Big Bang Theory or Evolution. They aren't even compatible with themselves much less biblical creationism. They're simply mutually exclusive. If either the Big Bang or evolution happened, creation didn't - period.

What they said was evolution probably, could have been a process that God used in creating almost everything except the creation of man whom God formed with his own hand.

A nonsensical statement that demonstrates ignorance of both the bible and the theory of evolution. Like I said before, it simply does not work nor can it be made to work. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either ignorant, lying or stupid.

And you have the nerve to tell me I'm not a Christian

I did not say that, but I will if you affirm that either of those two theories are in any way compatible with the Christian worldview. There isn't any way that the two fit together, whatsoever.

What I said was, "Anyone who thinks such a thing isn't a Christian and might as well throw their bible into the river and feed some microbes with it."

If that applies to you then own it. If it doesn't then great! (If the latter then what was the point of bringing it up?)

and you can't even read and understand what was written, if there was God in you you would and wouldn't be so quick to attack you just changed my mind about this site..

I did not attack you in any way shape or form! Maybe if you'd read what I said more carefully, you'd be less inclined to read hostility into posts where none exists. Believe me, if I'm being hostile, you'll know it.

Clete