How Do Christians Reconcile Evolution?

jmdrake said:
A metaphor for what exactly?
Click to expand...

If Adam didn't exist historically, then what purpose would it serve for his inclusion biblically? Christians that recognize evolution can't accept that Adam was the literal first man. To attempt a reconciliation, Adam must be figurative, or metaphor, or some other literary device.
 
Hello TER. Quick question. How do you decide which metaphors are important to you and which aren't? I know you take the Eucharist literally. I see it as a metaphor. Who's right? I can't say for sure, though of course I have my opinion. But to me that's something that I don't see as important to understanding salvation as Adam and Eve and the fall of man. That's where we get the first promise of the coming of the Messiah after all. Not posing this as a criticism, just a question.

TER said:
Christ died for us meaning mankind, in order to save mankind, and in doing so, saving all of creation which groans with birth pangs in anticipation of the Kindgom of Heaven. For we were made 'a little lower then angels' and yet the angels serve us who God made priests over creation. For God breathed the Spirit into man and made us children of God, alone made in His image and likeness. And He bestowed upon us the heavenly attributes of God, reasonable persons with the ability to create and destroy. Placing humans above all other creatures, bestowing the grace of adoption and kinship and lordship.

That God took clay from the ground and created Adam is enough for me, literally or otherwise. It does not affect my faith in the smallest way what that actually means. If it is literal, 'Glory to God!'. If it metaphorical, 'Glory to God!'

My worship is still to God the Father. And frankly, I have greater things to think about and more pressing issues in my life to work on then how I got here. I am much more interested in the why, which is not malleable and according to the time, but instead is eternal. If I ever get time to learn more about what God has revealed in man's quest for truth using the science of this world, that is, stay current with what new scientific experiments and findings suggest, then I would have items to debate in what must be fascinating fields of human endeavor (as biased and incomplete these fields may be).

Until then, I pray to the Lord for mercy and hope that one day He might 'bring me to all truths' by His Holy Spirit, whether it be in regards to the mystery of our creation or more importantly, why He created us at all.

And Christ reveals to all mankind why He created us and it pertains to the His very nature, that is, in the mystery of Love between persons, the very trinitarian expressed reality of eternal life which comes from the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.

And even now the Kingdom is available and can be experienced. Even in this life, in this fallen world, can we partake in the divine and ineffable mysteries of the Kingdom. This is because Christ has sanctified us by His Incarnation, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. God entered into creation to change creation, as High Priest, sanctifying creation and promising to be with us, always, and unto the end of the world.

This is the cry of the faithful and the testimony of the Church and can most evidently be seen in the lives of the holy men, women, and children, who by living Christ-bearing lives, became lights to the world, the very salt of the world, by whose prayers they have preserved the world until the glorious return of Christ, Who will come no more as an infant in a cave in a fallen world surrounded by the meek beasts of burden and poor shepards in the cold night, but as King and Lord and Judge of creation, the creation which He has sanctified as High Priest, upon a throne held by angels and before the congregation of saints and the entire world. This is a much more worthy evolution to consider and learn from.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TER
jmdrake said:
Yes. But "otherone" isn't willing to go with the assumption that Adam and Eve were historical figures. So the zygote is sinful already because....?
Click to expand...

Not at all.... assume away. I only said one can't believe that both Adam was historical and evolution exists. Do you?
 
otherone said:
What is 'death', Biblically?
Click to expand...

Here you go: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

Adam and Eve will Surely Die, Sudden Death?

There are some significant differences in the Hebrew words that have been translated as "die" and "surely die" in the recording of the communications of the Lord, Adam, Eve, and the serpent. The quote from the Scriptures that follow are Word by Word translations from the "Interlinear Bible" by J. P. Green and following each passage there is a magnified selection from the "Interlinear Bible" which is included to show in detail the recorded Hebrew words that are translated as die in each Passage. (Remember that Hebrew is read from right to left.)

"... Of every tree of the garden surely you may eat;
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
not you shall eat from it;
in the day of your eating from it
surely you shall die". (Genesis 2:16-17)

Genesis 2:17

Notice that the Hebrew word ( Strong's # 4191 ) is repeated which is a technique often used in the Hebrew for emphasis and the last of the passage is often translated more literally as "dying thou shall die". A less literal translation is "for as soon as you eat of it, you shall be doomed to die". For we know from reading the rest of the story the penalty was not sudden physical death, but as soon as the disobedience occurred Adam and Eve's relationship with the Lord was drastically changed and they were reduced to hiding in the bushes, the penalties were soon announced, and they were banished from the garden to continue the rest of their life in toil and sorrows.

"And said the woman to the serpent.
Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat,
but the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden had said God,
not shall you eat of it, nor shall you touch it,
lest you die." (Genesis 3:2-3)
Genesis 3:3

Notice that Eve did not repeat the form of the Words of the Lord! Instead she varied the Hebrew word translated as die and did not use the repeated word form used for emphasis. She also added the phrase about not touching it. The word form she used is unusual and similar forms appear only in Numbers 16:29 and Isaiah 22:14 and in both of these occurrences it appears to mean a physical death under conditions of judgment. It would appear that in her statement she was possibly showing her uncertainty or lack of full understanding as to exactly when and what would be the result of disobedience and the seriousness of the penalty. Eve would seem to have no way of knowing about death unless she had witnessed the physical death of a plant or an animal.

"And said the serpent to the woman,
Not surely you shall die." (Genesis 3:4)
Genesis 3:4

The reply of the serpent is phrased negatively and returns to the repeated word form but uses the same word form as the Lord for the first word and the word of Eve for the second word. This repeated word form is unique and appears no where else in the Scriptures. Therefore, the reply seems to be directed to how Eve had phrased her answer and to be correcting her statement or adding special emphasis in a negative way. There surely must be meanings within these Hebrew word changes that are not fully revealed by the translations. Looking in Strong's "Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible" we find the following.
muwth

Note that there is also the possible meaning, especially for the repeated word form, of a very sudden death. None of the translators have included the possibility that there is a sudden time implication in the words. Looking in "The Word" by Isaac E. Mozeson we see the following.
mat
Indicating that the words translated as die are in a family of words whose variations can also indicate a timeliness. The short two letter form is found a number of times in the later part of Genesis as shown in the selection below from Genesis 50:5.

Genesis 50:5

It would appear that Eve is either being corrected or gaining new information concerning the result of disobedience. Possibly the recorded serpent's reply could be more literally word for word translated as:
"Not dying shall you die suddenly"

This would be contrary to what many have concluded, in that they have proposed that the serpent was contradicting the Lord. Instead it is proposed that the serpent as "wise" or "subtil" was communing in truth, that is partial truths. The apparent confusion on Eve's part causes us to wonder if she fully understood all of the terrible consequences of disobedience.

It would appear that Eve by using the short form of to die, with the added vowel connected n consonant, was saying that she believed that if she touched the fruit of the tree of knowledge she at that moment would die. While the Lord was using a softer form of to die which did not necessarily indicate a sudden death. The serpent was then possibly informing her that the tree of knowledge was not about death, but as its name implied was about knowledge only. No information was given to explain how severely the act of disobedience would be punished. Eve then saw that the fruit was pleasant to the eye and some how even saw that it was good to eat. How she saw that it was good to eat is not explained. Could it possible be that she witnessed the fruit being eaten, possibly even being eaten by the serpent?? And then
"she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat,
and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

CONCLUSION: An alternate translation of the communication between the serpent and Eve is proposed which is believed to be more in line with the Masoretic Text and as suggested by Strong's dictionary. The new translation changes the serpent's answer to Eve from a direct contradiction to the Words of the Lord to that of informing Eve that the result of her disobedience will not be sudden physical death. A less literal variation of the translation could be
"You will not very suddenly die".

APPENDIX A: Does the Hebrew require that the serpent speak vocally?

Answer: NO!

Verse 3:8 says that Adam and Eve heard the voice/sound of the Lord in the garden and 3:17 says Adam listened to the voice of Eve. However, the Hebrew word used in the verses concerning the serpent, the Hebrew word usually translated as said, and transliterated as "amar" (Strong's #559) per Strong is a primary root, to say, but "used with great latitude". This translation latitude includes "said in his heart" of Genesis 17:7 and 27:41. "Think" of II Samuel 13:33 and of II Chronicles 13:8. And "commune" of Psalms 4:4. Therefore the Hebrew word can cover communications from vocal speech to private thoughts of the heart. We are told that the "serpent" was more "subtil/wise/cunning/clever" of all the "wild beasts". Ask any pet owner that has a "clever" pet and most usually they will say that they can know what their pet is thinking and wants from its owner. Even many wild animals not considered as being so clever have a way of communicating with humans. The editor recently had an experience when they were watering their garden inside a six foot high fence on a very hot evening and there appeared a wild hen turkey and three babies just outside the fence, and even though being far from one "who talks with the animals", we could readily see that the birds wanted water and sprayed a puddle on the ground outside the fence from which the birds rapidly quenched their thirst.

We have already discussed that quite possibly Eve saw the serpent eating of the fruit and possibly this was the primary way in which the temptation occurred. (By the way, the Hebrew word for serpent (from its hiss) is used in Isaiah 27:1 to describe the monster Leviathan, so it is possible that the serpent's appearance was not that of a common snake.) It is then quite possible that the serpent "communed" with Eve totally without using vocal speech! Many scholars have seen it proper to assume that Adam and Eve were of superior intelligence and that the "mother of all living" would have a heightened sense of understanding for the animal kingdom. Visualize the serpent in or under the forbidden tree, eating of the fruit and obviously enjoying its self and then looking directly at Eve and continuing to joyously eat away. Could not this scenario easily communicate to Eve that the fruit is beautiful, good tasting and non-poisonous? But we still have the problem of how she saw that it was "a tree to be desired to make one wise". Eve said "of the tree that is in the midst of the garden", did she know that it was the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and understand the implications thereof due to instructions from Adam, or did she assume it was a fruit for making one wise due to her knowledge of the "cleverness" of the serpent and assume that the fruit was the source of its wisdom? Strong informs us that as with many Hebrew words, the word "raah" (#7200), which is translated that Eve saw, can be literal or figurative and therefore could be translated as she discerned or perceived.
Click to expand...
 
jmdrake said:
Hello TER. Quick question. How do you decide which metaphors are important to you and which aren't? I know you take the Eucharist literally. I see it as a metaphor. Who's right? I can't say for sure, though of course I have my opinion. But to me that's something that I don't see as important to understanding salvation as Adam and Eve and the fall of man. That's where we get the first promise of the coming of the Messiah after all. Not posing this as a criticism, just a question.
Click to expand...

Hi jmdrake!

My understanding of the Genesis story is that it was a vision given to Moses about the origin of creation, the origin of man, and of our fall from Paradise. It is not a meant to be a scientific text book but of a revelation given to a man by God in a vision, in this instance to Moses, so that people thousands of years ago could understand. That is not to say that there wasn't a man named Adam, because I do believe there was a real man named Adam who God breathed the Spirit into (the possibility of evolution not withstanding). I can understand that a vision given of God may be simplified so as to make it understandable for us who are limited in knowledge and understanding compared to Him.

Take the example that God took clay from the ground and breathed the Spirit into Adam. Yes, that is easily understandable for someone circa 1500 BC to relate and to experience in a vision. Does that necessarily mean that God scooped down, picked up dirt, formed man with hands and then breathed unto him? Well, it might. It might also mean something much more complicated and much more mysterious, in fact, something (most likely) way way way beyond our human comprehension and understanding. But it doesn't really matter. The important thing is that God created man, that He loves us, that He wished for us to live together with Him in loving communion, and that by sin, we were separated from Him. This is the real meat of the story. This is much more important to meditate and ponder rather then which hand God picked up the clay and whether He formed a head first or the feet.

Understanding Scripture this way is perfectly orthodox and consistent with the teachings of the Church Fathers. Indeed, if one reads St. Basil the Great 'The Hexaemerion (the Six Days)', the understanding within it is simply MIND BOGGLING on how closely he relates the Genesis story to what science is suggesting today almost 2000 years later (that is, a Big Bang, a common seed, etc etc), and this coming from one of the greatest Christian minds ever to grace the planet. Indeed, I urge you or anyone else who is interested in how the early Church considered the Genesis story to read this masterpiece of early Christian theology. It can be found here.

Indeed, many of the earliest Church Fathers understood that many of the stories in the Old Testament were to be understood in more then just one way, that is both literal and metaphorical. In fact, much of the foretelling of Christ in the Old Testament is found metaphorically all throughout the Holy Scriptures.

A classic exam of this would be in a work of St. Gregory of Nyssa who is considered one of the greatest theologians of the early Church. If you have the opportunity, I also strongly urge you to read the book 'The Life of Moses'. It is well worth the read, I can guarantee, and you will thank me for it. The hints of Christ and how He saves us is found all throughout the life of Moses, both literally and metaphorically, and St. Gregory expounds on it in such a way that you will never look at the life and person of Moses the same again (and in a good way).

Now, as for the Eucharist, there is simply no comparison in an Eastern Orthodox mind, because Christ states in no uncertain terms what it is, that is, His Body and His Blood. In obedience to His commandment and in faith in His power, this is not seen as a metaphor but exactly what Christ said it is, neither a vision nor as a metaphor, but 'Food indeed' and 'Drink indeed' just as He described it.

Well, anyway, I don't know if I really answered your question. In general within the Scriptures, visions given by God to those who He has found worthy tend to be metaphorical and deep in layers of understanding. Indeed, I would say that perhaps even most things in the Scriptures have deeper meanings then what it may at first glance appear.

But I accept that I am fallible, indeed very fallible, and that I may come up with conclusions and interpretations which are not accurate and indeed completely and utterly wrong.

This is why, in the end, I rely on the witness of the saints and theologians of the Church to help me in such matters of faith, because they have excelled where I have failed, climbed heights which I have barely begun to climb and most likely never will, and have lived holy lives full of prayer and the Holy Spirit, with the gifts of the Spirit which come with it, including above all the knowledge of God. That is true theology, and not just the opinions of mine coming from a person living in New Jersey circa 2012. Not that there is no one living in NJ who has reached such heights of divine illumination, but rather, that I know I am not that person.
 
Last edited:
otherone said:
Not at all.... assume away. I only said one can't believe that both Adam was historical and evolution exists. Do you?
Click to expand...

I believe micro-evolution exists. I believe in a historical Adam. I also believe that Christianity requires a historical Adam. At least as much as it requires a virgin birth, but in my opinion much more so. Luke records the geneology of Jesus as going back to Adam. If Adam was just a metaphor then why not Mary? But it's not even the prophecy itself that's the problem. If Adam was a metaphor then he was a metaphor for what? You can't just leave that blank and say "I've solved the dilemma of reconciling Christianity to evolution. Hallelujah!" Nor can you pass the burden off to me by asking questions rather than answering them. Again I'll ask the question you won't answer. The zygote is sinful already because? We know the zygote is subject to death. It isn't "perfect". It's formed in sin. It has a propensity to sin. It might have genetic defects that don't even allow it to live long enough to get out of the womb. Why?
 
Okay. That's all well and good. But Luke states in no uncertain terms the geneology of Jesus which goes back to a historical Adam created by God and no further. And a metaphor is something that is said "in no uncertain terms" but meant to be taken a different way. So Jesus saying in no uncertain terms "this is my body and my blood" wouldn't mean that wasn't a metaphor. That's the definition of a metaphor. In John 6 Jesus said "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty." Yet Christians die of hunger and thirst just like anyone else. As in physical hunger and thirst. So that part had to be a metaphor right? A metaphor for spiritual hunger and thirst? Because that's how I understand the entire passage. Spiritually as opposed to physically.

But if the sticking point is "Anything said by Jesus in no uncertain terms isn't a metaphor, but other things may be" then what about the virgin birth? Jesus never said that. That was the gospel writers. If Luke declaring that Adam's only ancestor was God was really a metaphor for...what I don't know (Adam being the first person to believe in God?) then "A virgin will conceive" can be a metaphor. Some Christians believe that. I don't. I know you don't.

Oh, I'm reading the "The Great Hexaemeron". Interesting read. I'm unsure, however, of how you conclude that it reconciles Christianity with evolution. It seems to take the opposite view. For example:

http://www.elpenor.org/basil/hexaemeron.asp?pg=39
The production of vegetables shows first germination. When the germs begin to sprout they form grass; this develops and becomes a plant, which insensibly receives its different articulations, and reaches its maturity in the seed. Thus all things which sprout and are green are developed. "Let the earth bring forth green grass." Let the earth bring forth by itself without having any need of help from without. Some consider the sun as the source of all productiveness on the earth. It is, they say, the action of the sun's heat which attracts the vital force from the centre of the earth to the surface. The reason why the adornment of the earth was before the sun is the following; that those who worship the sun, as the source of life, may renounce their error. If they be well persuaded that the earth was adorned before the genesis of the sun, they will retract their unbounded admiration for it, because they see grass and plants vegetate before it rose. [1536] If then the food for the flocks was prepared, did our race appear less worthy of a like solicitude?

The idea that the plants existed before the sun doesn't seem to jive well with evolution. The earth was around for millions of years prior to the sun while the plants evolved? That doesn't make sense. At least from a scientific point of view. I agree with the point the author is making. Don't worship the sun. But the premise he takes to get there negates evolution as I understand it. The Great Hexaemeron doesn't seem at all concerned with reconciling with the scientific view of the origin of the planet or man. That's cool. I'm not either. ;)

Okay. But let's play with the "metaphorical but real" Adam for a moment. Three questions.
1) When did he first sin?
2) What was the results of his sin?
3) Did his and mother father die?

TER said:
Hi jmdrake!

My understanding of the Genesis story is that it was a vision given to Moses about the origin of creation, the origin of man, and of our fall from Paradise. It is not a meant to be a scientific text book but of a revelation given to a man by God in a vision, in this instance to Moses, so that people thousands of years ago could understand. That is not to say that there wasn't a man named Adam, because I do believe there was a real man named Adam who God breathed the Spirit into (the possibility of evolution not withstanding). I can understand that a vision given of God may be simplified so as to make it understandable for us who are limited in knowledge and understanding compared to Him.

Take the example that God took clay from the ground and breathed the Spirit into Adam. Yes, that is easily understandable for someone circa 1500 BC to relate and to experience in a vision. Does that necessarily mean that God scooped down, picked up dirt, formed man with hands and then breathed unto him? Well, it might. It might also mean something much more complicated and much more mysterious, in fact, something (most likely) way way way beyond our human comprehension and understanding. But it doesn't really matter. The important thing is that God created man, that He loves us, that He wished for us to live together with Him in loving communion, and that by sin, we were separated from Him. This is the real meat of the story. This is much more important to meditate and ponder rather then which hand God picked up the clay and whether He formed a head first or the feet.

Understanding Scripture this way is perfectly orthodox and consistent with the teachings of the Church Fathers. Indeed, if one reads St. Basil the Great 'The Hexaemerion (the Six Days)', the understanding within it is simply MIND BOGGLING on how closely he relates the Genesis story to what science is suggesting today almost 2000 years later (that is, a Big Bang, a common seed, etc etc), and this coming from one of the greatest Christian minds ever to grace the planet. Indeed, I urge you or anyone else who is interested in how the early Church considered the Genesis story to read this masterpiece of early Christian theology. It can be found here.

Indeed, many of the earliest Church Fathers understood that many of the stories in the Old Testament were to be understood in more then just one way, that is both literal and metaphorical. In fact, much of the foretelling of Christ in the Old Testament is found metaphorically all throughout the Holy Scriptures.

A classic exam of this would be in a work of St. Gregory of Nyssa who is considered one of the greatest theologians of the early Church. If you have the opportunity, I also strongly urge you to read the book 'The Life of Moses'. It is well worth the read, I can guarantee, and you will thank me for it. The hints of Christ and how He saves us is found all throughout the life of Moses, both literally and metaphorically, and St. Gregory expounds on it in such a way that you will never look at the life and person of Moses the same again (and in a good way).

Now, as for the Eucharist, there is simply no comparison in an Eastern Orthodox mind, because Christ states in no uncertain terms what it is, that is, His Body and His Blood. In obedience to His commandment and in faith in His power, this is not seen as a metaphor but exactly what Christ said it is, neither a vision nor as a metaphor, but 'Food indeed' and 'Drink indeed' just as He described it.

Well, anyway, I don't know if I really answered your question. In general within the Scriptures, visions given by God to those who He has found worthy tend to be metaphorical and deep in layers of understanding. Indeed, I would say that perhaps even most things in the Scriptures have deeper meanings then what it may at first glance appear.

But I accept that I am fallible, indeed very fallible, and that I may come up with conclusions and interpretations which are not accurate and indeed completely and utterly wrong.

This is why, in the end, I rely on the witness of the saints and theologians of the Church to help me in such matters of faith, because they have excelled where I have failed, climbed heights which I have barely begun to climb and most likely never will, and have lived holy lives full of prayer and the Holy Spirit, with the gifts of the Spirit which come with it, including above all the knowledge of God. That is true theology, and not just the opinions of mine coming from a person living in New Jersey circa 2012. Not that there is no one living in NJ who has reached such heights of divine illumination, but rather, that I know I am not that person.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
otherone said:
What is 'death', Biblically?
Click to expand...

The Bible talks about two deaths, physical and spiritual. Revelation speaks of those who are destroyed in hell as dying the "second death". But Jesus clearly said "Lazarus is dead" when talking about physical death. Still, if you believe differently, that the Bible is only talking about spiritual death, then do you believe that Jesus only saves us from spiritual death and that there is no resurrection or eternal life? Fine if you believe that. So far you haven't really staked out what you believe. I'm starting to wonder if that is on purpose. Nothing can be reconciled to everything.
 
jmdrake said:
Still, if you believe differently, that the Bible is only talking about spiritual death, then do you believe that Jesus only saves us from spiritual death and that there is no resurrection or eternal life? Fine if you believe that. So far you haven't really staked out what you believe. I'm starting to wonder if that is on purpose. Nothing can be reconciled to everything.
Click to expand...

I was taught that sin=death=separation from God, that flesh is necessarily sinful, and that eternal life is spiritual. I see Adam as a metaphor, not for the fall of Man, but for the fall of each man. I see Jesus as not Mankind's Savior, but each Adam's Savior.
 
otherone said:
I was taught that sin=death=separation from God, that flesh is necessarily sinful, and that eternal life is spiritual. I see Adam as a metaphor, not for the fall of Man, but for the fall of each man. I see Jesus as not Mankind's Savior, but each Adam's Savior.
Click to expand...

Jesus is both. Since all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, mankind in general needs a savior. But salvation is personal because each person has to chose it. (Or if you are Calvinist then you believe the choice is made for you). Yes the flesh is necessarily sinful. But the Bible teaches that it was not originally created sinful. By one man's sin, our genetic makeup was changed. Modern science has backed that up with the discovery of the epigenome. Your life choices can effect the traits you pass on to your offspring that haven't even been born yet.
 
onlyrp said:
Where can't you see intelligent design? Can you give me an example of biology that's poor design?
Click to expand...

Humans: Tail bone, appendix.

Or what about whales still having legs inside of their bodies that serve no purpose at all?

That would be poor design doncha think? :)
 
Last edited:
Chrysamere said:
Humans: Tail bone, appendix.

Or what about whales still having legs inside of their bodies that serve no purpose at all?

That would be poor design doncha think? :)
Click to expand...

The problem with your response is, only evolutionists think that's poor design, no intelligent designer or creationist will say that. So, I was asking creationists if they can give me one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
What Would Jesus Do?
Replies
0
Views
57
PAF
PAF
PAF
Billionaire Bill Ackman’s Plan to ‘Educate’ America’s Next Elite
Replies
3
Views
47
unknown
unknown
PAF
Libertarianism vs. Microlibertarianism
Replies
0
Views
117
PAF
PAF
PAF
Libertarianism and Metaethics
Replies
0
Views
115
PAF
PAF
PAF
Why Do We Live in a Two-Faced World?
Replies
1
Views
127
TheTexan
TheTexan
Back
Top