Evidence of Theistic Evolution in the Bible?

Genesis 1:1-2. Some believe a possible time gap occurred between these two verses. It shows that the universe had been created but never explicitly implies how long it existed before the development of creation began. In other words, it reveals a difference between the original creation and its eventual development.

Genesis 1:11-12. The Bible shows God saying 'Let there be…' in other verses but then switches the phrase to 'Let the earth bring forth plants' and 'Then the earth brought forth plants.' Were plants developed from the earth through adaptation with the gentle care and intervention of God?

Genesis 1:24-25. Again, instead of a 'Let there be…' God tells the land (from the vegetation he created?) to bring forth animals but then also shows us Him creating them. Theistic evolution? Did God design new creations from His other creations through genetic evolution while being fully involved in the process?

Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:7. Wait a minute. God said He created man in His own image and that He also created him from the dust out of the ground. Again, was He using His own creation to make other creations?

Genesis 2:21-23. God made Eve out of Adam. Why not form her out of the ground as well? Did God use cellular mitosis and more 'new creation from previous creation?' Why cause a deep sleep to come over Adam and take part of him to make another? We know living cells divide as a fact of science. Did God use His creation of cellular mitosis to create Eve?

Genesis 2:14. The snake is cursed to slither on the ground. According to evolution, the snake is evolved from animals that once had limbs and modern snakes show signs of this form of degeneration. See: This section of talks about the evolutionary degeneration of snakes. Degeneration is also mentioned in other parts of the Bible (more on this in a moment). Was the curse for the serpent gradual like the curse for humans and nature?

Genesis 2:18. Wait a minute. How could thorns and thistles (or any new species) come into being if creation was absolutely complete? Did God again use nature to create nature? Did he encode it to be a perpetuating system with His direct guidance? Does He still actively participate in the birth of new species? He again used the terminology for the land to bring forth thorns and thistles and not 'Let there be thorns and thistles' which would have implied an immediate creation. Gradual vs. Immediate and 'Let there be' vs. "Land bring forth.'

Genesis 2:19. So here we have another reference to the concept of degeneration. They did not die immediately. Would the curse come in the gradual form of genetic mutations like the serpent?

Genesis 5 and Genesis 11:10-32. The human lifespan began decreasing over time. More degeneration. It has been shown that beneficial regressive genes are often discarded in favor of inferior dominate genes. Is this genetic order part of the curse?

Genesis 10:25. Is this a reference to the separation of the continents known in secular science as Pangaea? How could this be so? Pangaea was supposed to occur almost 250,000 million years before the existence of man. Furthermore, Peleg wasn't even alive when Genesis was penned. How did the author of Genesis know about the continental division if it didn't even occur in his time and when he wasn't a contemporary of the witness? See: Continental Drift & Plate Tectonics.

So, what’s this all about? Was the Bible actually referring to an evolutionary process before the theory was a twinkling in the eye of Darwin? Since he had once planned to be a clergyman, did his previous study of the Scriptures inspire deeper investigation after his conversion to theism?

Did God actually place the ability in our genetic coding while taking an active role in this process? He did tell all species to be fruitful and multiply. Perhaps only now can we truly understand the depth of this instruction. Or what about the "according to it's own kind" command? Did God use creation to form His newer creation for it to later all reproduce to its own kind?

Is this just another example of modern science confirming what the Bible already taught? Has scientific evidence opened our eyes and corrected our previous incorrect interpretation? This has happened once before due to faulty human understanding of the Bible.

We know the medieval church once considered it heresy to claim the earth was spherical because they believed the Bible taught a flat earth. But did it? I don't think so. Take Isaiah 41:9 into consideration. It was incorrectly translated as "corners" for centuries even though the original Hebrew uses a completely different term that explicitly differs between definitions. This verse in Isaiah (among others) uses the word Qatsah (extremities) while references to literal corners (Zaviyth) was not used.

In the Bible, all lands were mentioned by their relevant location from Israel (The kings of the north and south and east and west for one example). Internal evidence shows this is what Isaiah was referring to by his mention of Earth's extremities. They also didn't take into consideration the references to the earth being a circle/circuit/compass of NE, NW, SE, and SW since ancient Hebrew had no word for sphere.

[edit on 1/5/2008 by AshleyD]

Hello again ashley

Glad you've come to join us in here. I would like to raise the same issues you know already I have.

The appearance times are off. But what's a day between friends?

So, in sum, I don't think it does. But if you want to interpret it that way, better than denying the scientific evidence.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by melatonin]

...

If you look hard enough and start saying things like it's not meant to be taken literally (which then is near impossible to know what the composer(s) wanted to put across in the first place) and work backwards then you could probably find the eqation E=mc2 somewhere or anything else for that matter.

The funny thing is, theories like these are only found afterwards when science has already accepted it.

Originally posted by AncientVoid
If you look hard enough and start saying things like it's not meant to be taken literally (which then is near impossible to know what the composer(s) wanted to put across in the first place)...

But what if it is the other way around? What if this is the literal interpretation and we had previously taken things metaphorically? Could we have accidentally believed the days were literal days (The original Hebrew is ambiguous) when they were really geological epochs?

How could we not have noticed the difference before between "Let there be" and "[Something already in existence] bring forth?" How could we have known about and accepted the gradual change of humans that is explicitly mentioned in the Bible and think it was any different with the rest of creation that came under the same curse. There is internal Biblical evidence that the curse came gradual to us so perhaps we erroneously assumed the earth's curse was instant.

At first God created us as herbivores. But after the flood (and according to Genesis this is when nature really accelerated in its degeneration) He authorized the consumption of animals. Was this because the curse of nature diminished the nutritious value of plants and vegetables? In order to get all the nutrition out of degenerated nature, He knew we would need other types of food to offset the deficit?

Originally posted by AncientVoid
The funny thing is, theories like these are only found afterwards when science has already accepted it.

Oops! I didn't see this part of your original comment. History has proven our interpretation to be incorrect in the past. One example is the Messianic prophecies. They both referred to a Messiah who would be scorned, rejected, and murdered and at the same time be exalted, praised, and reign eternally. What's this all about? This confused the Jews of antiquity greatly! Hence the conflicting terms in referencing the Messiah: The Suffering Servant and The King of Kings.

When John the Baptist asked Jesus if He was the one who was promised to come, how could He have had any doubts when he personally saw the Holy Spirit descending like a dove and heard a voice from Heaven? Because the English translation isn't as clear as the original Greek. John was not asking if Jesus was the one- he was asking is Jesus the only one. The dualism of prophecy was so confusing many thought there would be two Messiahs!

Of course we now know through Jesus' explanation that He is coming twice. Once as a peaceful suffering servant to atone for sins and once as a king to judge and rule the nations. The Bible was never wrong- we were.

If the earth and all of creation was literally created in six days and creation was spoken into being, I would believe this because the Bible has validated itself in other areas and I have faith God has the power. If God purposely set up the system through adaption then I would believe that is in His power and will as well. I would accept both the miraculous and the scientific because He is the author and Creator of both methods regardless of how He chose to accomplish the task.

So, it leads me to wonder if evolution is actually a confirmation of His intelligence and awesome power and not a contradiction of it. Does modern science actually confirm the literal interpretation of Genesis? I cannot possibly believe the intelligent design and complexity of organic matter and the universe is accidental but I can believe God created the system and nurtured it with His loving care and direct intervention.

The theory that many biblical scholars follow is that the old testament (which includes Genesis) is made up of 4 different texts that were interwoven to make up the book that we know of today. The Book of J is the first text. It is believed to be based on the version of the bilble that was popular in the kingdom of Judah. The second text is the Book of E, which is believed to be based on the version of the bible that was popular in the kingdom of Israel at about the same time. The 3rd text was the Book of D, which is consists mainly of the book of Deuteronomy and came a relativeley short time after the other two books. The fourth text was the Book of P, which was a text written by priests a few centuries after E and J and consists mainly of the book of Leviticus.

J and E contain mostly stories, and stories like Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve are really interweavings of J and E. That is why you often seem two read two different accounts of the same story in Genesis, with the two accounts often being a few words apart. D and P on the other hand consist mostly of rules.

Scholars believe that the prophet Ezra (or others at or around his time) began redacting and interweaving the 4 books and maybe added extra material. They base their theories by analyzing the style and language of the text, the historical record, and a few lines from the Bible itself which suggest that the Bible was a work in progress for much of antiquity. (For example, the Bible mentions how Deuteronomy was a lost book that was later "found" in the Temple, suggesting that Deuteronomy was a later addition to the bible.)

Here is a link you might find helpful.
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 5-1-2008 by hotpinkurinalmint]

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


Yes, this is known as the JEDP Hypothesis. Similar to the Q hypothesis. Here is an article that explores the hypothesis briefly on an introductory page then offers about a dozen links that explore the hypothesis in depth. There is simply too much evidence (internal, external, and archaeological) that gives us good reason to dismiss the modern hypothesis.

But there isn't two contradicting Genesis accounts in the original Hebrew. I explained it twice on other threads when it was asked about so let me know and I will hunt down those replies and paste them here if it is an issue for you. :-)

[edit on 1/5/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AncientVoid
...

The funny thing is, theories like these are only found afterwards when science has already accepted it.

The Bible states that the evidence for the Creator is all around us. None of us has an excuse for missing the obvious. The Apostle Paul addressed the issue with these words from Romans 1:20, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so they are without excuse."

King David had been up late at night, , doing a little stargazing when he penned these words in Psalm 14:1, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

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

reply to post by AshleyD


The 4 source books do not necessarily contradict eachother, but may vary slightly with regards to relatively minor certain details. They also have different themes and choose to emphasize different aspects of God. For example, in the story of Noah, one book describes Noah releasing a raven and the other book describes Noah releasing a dove.

From what I've read on the subject, scholars still hold on to the JDEP theory, or at least some variation of it. The only people that dismiss the theory are devout believers. Their dismissal is based more on faith than science and scholarship.

Evidence internal to the bible suggests that different texts existed. First, the Bible itself talks of political divisions between the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. It would make sense these political divisions would translate into religious differences, and thus giving rise to two different books, J and E. Second, the Bible itself mentions that Deuteronomy was "found" centuries after Moses supposedly wrote the pentateuch. Third, the bible describes Ezra as reiterating the Bible to the people. This reiteration had to be the publication of some redaction, canonization, or editing process of the bible. Finally, scholars look to differences in the language, grammar, and syntax of the bible. These differences suggest different portions of the bible were written at different times.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by hotpinkurinalmint]

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

YES!!! would you like to MEET HIM!!

I think I can arrange that if you're up for it. I mean I figure anyone that can come back to life after being dead has got to be special ya know!! I almost didn't wanna believe it myself, I mean all these "aceyists" saying it's nuts, it's not true, that it's a myth and that he couldn't have done that. I mean if anyone ought to know about making life begin it's got to be them,, I mean this guy Jesus actually had to depend on a body or vessel to put the life in.

but THESE GUYS CLAIM LIFE it can just happen,, heck you don't even need any props like a body for it to manifest.

These guys are so advanced they claim life can just happen FROM ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING AT ALL!! I MEAN STRAIGHT OUT A NOWHERE!! LIKE POOF! IT'S MAGIC! If I didn't know better,, I'd say that is either an act of GOD or the most tortureously contstrued alibi for not knowing a damn thing I have ever heard. Guess it's one of those things no one has actually seen but got to believe it by faith.

THEY CALL IT or "evilution" which uses Natural Seduction

I just haven't been seduced by it.

HA HA and they say we're crazy

- Con








[edit on 6-1-2008 by Conspiriology]

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

There absolutely is evidence for the existence of God. Because there are too many variables with the exact science of creation and it is impossible to prove a divine event that predates human existence, I prefer to use prophetic fulfillment, expositional theology, and textual exegesis as verification. Those are things I can verify for those who ask because it is there in black and white.

But do the references mentioned in the original post indeed point to God encoding our DNA to process changes and adaptations? Is this an example of advanced scientific foreknowledge in the Bible? Why did the author of Genesis use this precise terminology to imply such a thing and is it possible scientific evidence is verifying what the Bible said all along? Why or why not? It's just a discussion- don't get intimidated if a new idea cannot immediately fit inside our preconceived notions. Think outside the box.



[edit on 1/6/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


I swear I will reply to you more in depth tomorrow but I will leave something to consider (I'm exhausted and about to hit the floor! ).

Deuteronomy isn't referenced in the original thread so I don't want to get too off topic but I will answer your question tomorrow as it is understandable how the JEDP hypothesis could come into play. So, concentrate on our Genesis references for now.

Also, if Deuteronomy was apocryphal I would be immensely pleased on one end because I found a continuous ELS code all the way through in the first four books of the Torah starting in chapter one, verse one of each book but the precise structure changes from a 50 character skip to a 49 character skip with the start of Deuteronomy. It took me ages to do it by hand and it is frustrating to get stuck on the last book. However, I cannot toss out solid scholarship that says Deuteronomy is authentic just because it messes up my silly discovery!

But I promise I will answer you tomorrow. Check out those links I showed you, too. It will probably answer a lot of your questions.

reply to post by AshleyD


They say humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! (hehe!)

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint


The 4 source books do not necessarily contradict eachother, but may vary slightly with regards to relatively minor certain details. They also have different themes and choose to emphasize different aspects of God. For example, in the story of Noah, one book describes Noah releasing a raven and the other book describes Noah releasing a dove.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by hotpinkurinalmint]

mmmmm The old raven dove hair splitting method.

Try this www.spotlights.org...

There is no need to eat meat of any kind. So your assumption that nature had degenerated and we needed other forms of food to survive is false from the outset.

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

Beans, Beans, good for your heart, the more you eat, the more you fart, the more you fart the more crazy people believe in a god.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
They say humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! (hehe!)

The Bible mentions God "breathing the breath of life" into man and animals and "giving man a living soul."

I'm wondering if this possibly fills in the gaps of the evolutionary theory. Evolutionists offer many different theories as to how inorganic matter made the conversion to organic life but nobody really knows. Perhaps the Bible has been telling us all along how this happened- God started the process but specifically gave us life and consciousness.

Makes sense when you look at the whole puzzle.

First of all, I will remind you again that the scriptures to which you refer are only authoritative to xians, not to unbelievers, hindus, muslims, satanists, etc.

Secondly, I thought creationists don't believe in evolution, so why try to use science to prove the scriptures are real?

Perhaps the evidence for evolution is just so compelling that it's trying people's baseless faith.

Rather than go through mental gymnastics and try to prove that evolution has anything to do with gods, why not just take it at face value?

It seems to me that trying to fit the scientific principle of evolution into the mutually exclusive system of creationism shows that creationism really doesn't make sense even to the faithful, but rather than do the rational thing and give up the faith, they'd rather torture it by putting it's square peg into a round hole.

Originally posted by Legalizer
There is no need to eat meat of any kind. So your assumption that nature had degenerated and we needed other forms of food to survive is false from the outset.

A purely meat diet has its problems and vegetarianism is also not without its drawbacks as well. A glass of wine a day is also good for the heart but too much of anything can be bad for the body. The Bible does say "all things in moderation." I wonder if this is telling us something.

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

"However beans, like most plants, do not have a complete set of amino acids, and are therefore dangerous to depend upon as a sole source of protein." (See: Here).

So what about protein alternatives? Soy, milk, and nuts?. All are high in protein. But these foods are among the highest allergy-inducing foods in existence. What do they do for protein? And what about societies who do not have developed agriculture but still rely on the hunting and gathering method? Not every society is capable of planting crops to feed their villages. Regardless, they still lack the amino acids for complete nutrition.

Beans, Beans, good for your heart, the more you eat, the more you fart, the more you fart the more crazy people believe in a god.

Beans, beans good for your heart, unfortunately this is a poor argument. For not all civilizations plant bean fields and can't have them at any meal!

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
First of all, I will remind you again that the scriptures to which you refer are only authoritative to xians, not to unbelievers, hindus, muslims, satanists, etc.

Agreed. But how is this relevant to the topic of discussion?

Secondly, I thought creationists don't believe in evolution, so why try to use science to prove the scriptures are real?

Yes and no. We believe in degenerate changes over time because the Bible explicitly mentions this and has been verified by science. But we do not believe it is possible for a species to produce a completely different species over millions of years. Nor do we believe that all matter, order, and life came into being by itself.

Perhaps the evidence for evolution is just so compelling that it's trying people's baseless faith.

Don't be so quick to say it's baseless (but that will derail the topic so let's leave that alone for now). The question to ask would be is evolution so compelling because this is exactly how God designed His creation?

Remember, Darwin was a theist who admonished his audience to understand the harmony between the two beliefs- not that evolution pushes a supreme being out of the equation. He left Christianity because he could not understand some of the grotesque and even cruel habits of some species. Perhaps if he had read into what the Bible was saying he could have understood.

Rather than go through mental gymnastics and try to prove that evolution has anything to do with gods, why not just take it at face value?

Because it's not how my mind works. I need evidence to both prove and disprove things. Instead of going through the mental gymnastics and try to prove God, why not just His existence at face value? But neither of us have to do either since both sides have evidence.

It seems to me that trying to fit the scientific principle of evolution into the mutually exclusive system of creationism shows that creationism really doesn't make sense even to the faithful, but rather than do the rational thing and give up the faith, they'd rather torture it by putting it's square peg into a round hole.

But are we? First of all, most Christians (including myself) do not agree with Theistic evolution. Is it in God's power? Does it help fill in the gaps evolutionists cannot explain? Sure. But that's as far as it goes. Again, we believe in the principles of entropy and degeneration but not the cycle of big bangs and big crunches.

It's not that Christianity has no evidence to support it (quite the opposite). It's the fact the Judeo-Christian God cannot be confirmed through creationism alone. There were no eye witnesses to this event like other events (more specifically in the New Testament).