Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Theistic Evolution

Expand Messages
  • William
    Arcee, I agree that we need to be cautious in what order we read evidence in regards to creation, but we also need to use caution in reading translations due
    Message 1 of 17 , Feb 8, 2011
      Arcee,

      I agree that we need to be cautious in what order we read evidence in regards to creation, but we also need to use caution in reading translations due to the bias of the translators. For instance, Hrry Orlinsky in "The Plain Meaning of Genesis 1:1-3" (Biblical Archeologist, 1983) suggests that stating that God created the heaven (reportedly the literal Hebrew) and the earth, merely implies that God created everything. Attempting to read more into these verses is to move beyond what the Bible claims.

      However, we also need to be cautious in seeking to place the Bible over the discoveries of science. Remember Aquinas "A mistake about creation will lead to a mistake about God" and that Maimodes argued that the Bible and science will not conflict when both are properly understood. The challenge is then to understand both science and the Bible in a way that allows both to be accurate. The materialistic approach will not do so. To resort to the MultiWorld Interpretation of quantum physics might offer a solution, but I would argue that in fact it fails to do justice to the Bible. Thus there are indications that such an approach will not be an easy task, for to do wo will require a paradigm shift.

      Bill

      --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Arcee A <truthseeker41471@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi William,
      >
      > I think the problem is not with the available evidence but how to interpret the
      > evidence. Do you start with what you see in the world and interpret the Bible
      > based on what you see, or do you start with the Bible and then interpret the
      > evidence based on what you have read in it? As for me, well... just take a look
      > at the bottom of my signature to see my position :)
      > God bless!
      >
      >
      > Arcee
      >
      >
      > "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because
      > I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: William <eliadefollower@...>
      > To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 11:19:24 PM
      > Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Theistic Evolution
      >
      >
      > Arcee,
      >
      > I think it fits with all available evidence. This might force us to reconsider
      > the nature of "Sin" and "death", but that is not necessarily a bad thing. If we
      > try to force creation to literally fit Genesis, then we have a potential problem
      > between Genesis 1 and 2, namely was man created before or after the rest of the
      > creatures. HOwever, if we accept both accounts as either stories intended to
      > teach something or as reactions against other religious traditions, then the
      > problems, while not vanishing, at least shift and require us to ask different
      > questions.
      >
      > I personally do not think that it is so bad that I must reevaluate my
      > assumptions occassionally. I would rather be forced to rethink something than
      > continue to hold an incorrect understanding of God. Let me change my mistakes
      > sometimes.
      >
      > Bill
      >
      > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Arcee A <truthseeker41471@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > I've recently encountered someone who believed in Theistic Evolution (or
      > > Progressive Creation). He believes that God created the universe and the earth
      > >
      > > and all that is in it initially, thereby allowing everything to run its natural
      > >
      > > course and letting evolution take over. Therefore, according to this view, man
      > >
      > > evolved from apes instead of being specially created by God on the sixth day.
      > > He also sees the six days of creation as representing long spans of time
      > > instead of the morning-followed-by-evening normal 24-day hours.
      > >
      > > For me, this is totally wrong since adopting this view would introduce death
      > > coming before sin.
      > >
      > > Any inputs, anyone?
      > > God bless!
      > >
      > >
      > > Arcee
      > >
      > >
      > > "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only
      > >because
      > >
      > > I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
      > >
      >
    • Isa
      Hi, Arcee,Bill, and all: Here is the most relevant section of the position of the Roman Catholic Church, Re: Theistic Evolution and how to interprete Genesis:
      Message 2 of 17 , Feb 10, 2011
        Hi, Arcee,Bill, and all:

        Here is the most relevant section of the position of the Roman Catholic Church, Re: Theistic Evolution and how to interprete Genesis:

        Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott in his authoritative Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, under the section "The Divine Work of Creation," (pages 92-122) covers the "biblical hexaemeron" (the "six days" of creation), the creation of man, Adam/Eve, original sin, the Fall, and the statements of the early Fathers, Saints, Church Councils, and Popes relevant to the matter. Ott makes the following comments on the "science" of Genesis and the Fathers:

        "...Since the findings of reason and the supernatural knowledge of Faith go back to the same source, namely to God, there can never be a real contradiction between the certain discoveries of the profane sciences and the Word of God properly understood." (Ott, page 92).

        (NOTE: "Word of God, properly understood!")

        As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be regarded or measured as if it were couched in language which is strictly scientific... The Biblical account of the duration and order of Creation is merely a literary clothing of the religious truth that the whole world was called into existence by the creative word of God. The Sacred Writer utilized for this purpose the pre-scientific picture of the world existing at the time. The numeral six of the days of Creation is to be understood as an anthropomorphism. God's work of creation represented in schematic form (opus distinctionis -- opus ornatus) by the picture of a human working week, the termination of the work by the picture of the Sabbath rest. The purpose of this literary device is to manifest Divine approval of the working week and the Sabbath rest." (Ott, page 93, cf. Exod 20:8)

        Pope John Paul II wrote to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on . . . how to interpret Genesis:

        "Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." (John Paul II, 3 October 1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Science, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

        As I have stated before, discussions of this kind belong to the academe which does not lead to faith or commitment or to action TO CALL ALL NATIONS TO LIVE ACCORDING TO THE WAYS OF THE SPIRIT AND NO LONGER ACCORDING TO THE WAYS OF THE WORLD but, as John Paul II said, is "alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." Or to attain eternal life!

        God bless.

        Isa
        -----

        -- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Arcee A <truthseeker41471@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Isa,
        >
        > Wow! Quite a lengthy read. I've not finished reading it though it seems that
        > we agree on this one point, and let me quote you: "FAITH and REASON are not
        > mutually exclusive but rather are mutually supportive of one another."
        >
        > And since you pointed me to this resource, let me point you to Rob's book, (yes
        > Rob Bowman, Jr. - our moderator and founder of this forum) which has this
        > title:
        >
        > Faith Has Its Reasons
        >
        > God bless!
        >
        > Arcee
        >
        >
        > "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because
        > I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: Isa <isalcordo@...>
        > To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Fri, February 4, 2011 8:19:14 AM
        > Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Theistic Evolution
        >
        >
        > Hi, Arcee:
        >
        > Here is a good link to see the views of the Roman Catholic Church on Theistic
        > Evolution.
        >
        > http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p94.htm
        >
        > Here is an excerpt topic of the material: "Theistic evolution" and "Evolution
        > and the Roman Catholic Church"
        >
        > The basis for the RC position is based on the fact that FAITH and REASON are not
        > mutually exclusive but rather are mutually supportive of one another.
        >
        >
        > Thus, "Pope Pius IX states in the following paragraph that faith and reason do
        > not conflict:
        >
        > "10. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they
        > mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the
        > foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of
        > divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects
        > it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds." (Vatican Council I)."
        >
        > Have a good read.
        >
        > Isa
        > --------
        >
        > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Arcee A <truthseeker41471@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > I've recently encountered someone who believed in Theistic Evolution (or
        > > Progressive Creation). He believes that God created the universe and the earth
        > >
        > > and all that is in it initially, thereby allowing everything to run its natural
        > >
        > > course and letting evolution take over. Therefore, according to this view, man
        > >
        > > evolved from apes instead of being specially created by God on the sixth day.
        > > He also sees the six days of creation as representing long spans of time
        > > instead of the morning-followed-by-evening normal 24-day hours.
        > >
        > > For me, this is totally wrong since adopting this view would introduce death
        > > coming before sin.
        > >
        > > Any inputs, anyone?
        > > God bless!
        > >
        > >
        > > Arcee
        > >
        > >
        > > "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only
        > >because
        > >
        > > I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.