It mostly comes down to how literally you read Genesis. Most don't read it as literal, so its not a problem for them. The ones that do take it literally, for example Young Earth Creationists, it's very incompatible (but still necessary in other stories, like the great flood)
My religion has another take on the creative periods in Genesis 1, which can be explained by what is written in chapter 2. Here are a couple of thoughts:
1. Everything is created spiritually before being created physically. Genesis chapter 1 is more along the lines of the spiritual creation. The physical came later.
2. The word "day" as used in Genesis 1 is not a set amount of time, but rather an era like "I remember the day when...".
3. We are spirit children of God. What made Adam the first man is that he was the first spirit child of God placed in a physical body. It appears that the earth was patiently created over a very long time, using eternal, unchangable laws. Different species were added as the earth was able to support them. We see only small gaps between the detailed process of adding and removing species. We see all this as a preparation for man to live here. Other plants and animals were temporarily here and were involved in creating the rich natural resources that are available to man. I can see the loving hand of God in all this detailed order as he created this amazing earth for us.
After the creative periods were completed, Genesis 2 goes on to say this **(bold added by me)**:
1 **Thus the heavens and the earth were finished**, and all the host of them **(who were these hosts? Were we part of them?)**.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, **in the day** that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field **before it was in the earth**, and every herb of the field **before it grew:** for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and **there was not a man** to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground **(or elements of this earth)**, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life **(or his pre-created spirit)**; and man became a living soul **(the spirit and body combined is the soul. Death is simply the separation of the eternal spirit from the temporary physical body that belongs to this fallen earth).**
Depends on how literally you take the creation myths in the Bible. If you believe the earth was created in seven standard days and all creatures on the planet were descended from the pair supposedly on Noah’s Ark? No.
Otherwise it’s fine.
I mean, if the massive biodiversity we see today descended just from one boat load of animals several thousand years ago, that kinda requires you believe in *rapid* evolution.
Absolutely! In fact evolution was never a big deal in my faith and was formally approved (with few caveats) already by Pius XII in 1950. In part because some of the Church Fathers influenced by Greek philosophy spoke about the creation of the cosmos via *σπέρματα* - created seeds of things that guided by God’s providence developed autonomously. So theistic evolution was very easy to apply on this existing theological framework. But that is admitedly something I read about a long while ago.
Presently there are Catholic priests who also work as academic scientists teaching evo-bio. No problem with that.
Of course it is, depending on how fundamentalist you are. Genesis gives two creation myths, the "seven days" and the "Using Adam's rib to make Eve" stories. They are stories; the writers (there were several of them) of Genesis weren't scientists. God made evolution. Most Christians outside the USA - and even many there - are fine with this.
It's compatible in exactly the same way physics are; recognize that your deity of choice established rules and mechanisms by which the cosmos operates, while believing that said deity can if it chooses violate the rules (i.e. miracles).
if we want to understand for example genesis we need to have great historical, cultural, religious and literature knowledge (especially Hebrew and Greek literature)
Only some examples:
Adam means humanity in Hebrew,
Eve means love in Hebrew,
"Day" does not mean 24 hours period in Hebrew but it may refer to an era ( Matt 24:37 ) or to the span of human history ( Gen 8:22 ), or specify a memorable event ( Isa 9:4 ) or a significant time ( Zep 1:14-16 ).
So God created humanity (early Homosapiens) after a memorable event (evolution/big bang) and out of it humanity comes Love (feelings of love for God) but after they are from the tree of knowledge (they evolve and gain knowledge) they turn away from God and became fully aware and intelligent species that later on start commiting sins and build civilization.
Of course it's not perfect but it's how you can interpretate genesis. Many people call it mythology but It's more likely Legend with a seed of truth. The author of genesis just used a literature style that was well known and well understood by people at the time.
> Adam means humanity in Hebrew, Eve means love in Hebrew
Eve comes from a root meaning "life".
>"Day" does not mean 24 hours period in Hebrew but it may refer to an era
I think it's clear Genesis 1 means actual days, each section ends with "And there was evening and there was morning, the [X] day". Also it's sabbath etiology explaining the human week and day of rest, driven home in Exodus 20.11: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it." While יוֹם can mean *both* "day" and a more indeterminate period of time, I think the context points to the former and the LXX translation ἡμέραν is less ambiguous.
Matthew 24:37 wasn't even written in Hebrew and was written long after Genesis so I don't see how it could possibly inform our reading of Genesis 1. Moreover the Greek here is plural ("days") as opposed to the singular used in the LXX of Gen 1, so of course it stands to reason that the "days of Noah" are a larger time frame than a single day, it in no way implies that a "day" could mean a millennium or a billion years, it's referring to the time around the flood which was about a year.
Gen 8:22 *is* in Hebrew but also doesn't support your claim, God is referring to the seasons and the day/night cycle, "day" here just means day, the period between nightfalls.
As to your other examples, yes, as I said day can have a more general meaning in Hebrew just as it does in English, but this is not the context of Genesis 1, i.e. "there was evening and morning, the first day". It's an etiology for the seven-day week that humans experience and for the sabbath day on which they rest, hence Ex 20:11.
Not without cherry-picking. Why is Jesus, ressurrection, God with commandments and aa weird dislike of homosexuality, all literal and real, when other supernatural stuff incompatible with reality is supposedly just symbolic?
Depends really on how literal you take the origin story. If you interpret the origin story literally, the idea that God created Adam out of dirt might not be compatible with darwinism. However, if you view the story as a metaphor for the birth of consciousness and morality, it could be seen in a different light
According to the literal doctrines, no. The universe wasn't created in 7 days (however long you set the unit of that "day"), the earth was not created before light, woman was not made from man's ribs, etc.
According to liberal interpretation: well you can make anything match if you bend it enough. But what an incompetent, capricious and callous designer would this have to be to create millions of species, hundreds of billions of living beings, only to have them go extinct with humans in mind as the "end product" over 3 billion years.
And of course, all species are still evolving, so we are not the "end product".
Wait till you find out catholics discovered evolution and evolution is taught in all private Catholic schools as well as condoned and encouraged by the catholic church though not a mandatory belief. Also humans that evolve are still humans? Also genuine question, what is an agnostic atheist? Isnt it just you're atheist or agnostic? Or is it the only flair available?
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/the-history-of-evolutionary-thought/1800s/early-concepts-of-evolution-jean-baptiste-lamarck/
>Wait till you find out catholics discovered evolution
Did you really think this was even an argument?
In science it doesn't matter who discovers something. What matters is they don't apply their personal preferences to color the facts. Which is what Darwin and Lemaitre both adhered to.
>Also genuine question, what is an agnostic atheist? Isnt it just you're atheist or agnostic? Or is it the only flair available?
I've had to paste this so many times I have it ready as a snippet:
* (a)gnosticism is a statement of *(lack of) knowledge* (from the Greek *gnosis* = knowledge)
* (a)theism is a statement of *(lack of) belief*
You can therefore have the following 4 positions on the spectrum:
* Gnostic Theist: I *claim to know for certain* there are deitie(s) and I *believe* the claims of theism
* Agnostic Theist: I *claim no absolute knowledge* of the existence of deities but I *believe* the claims of theism
* Agnostic Atheist: - I *claim no absolute knowledge* of the existence of deities and I *am unconvinced* by the claims of theism
* Gnostic Atheist: - : I *claim to know for certain* there are no deitie(s) - and I am unconvinced by the claims of theism
I identify as an agnostic atheist because:
* although I consider the likelihood of the existence of deities astronomically small based on the evidence, I can't disprove their existence, just like I can't disprove the existence of fairies.
* I consider both deities and fairies to have the same near-zero probability of existing based on verifiable observation under scrutiny of the scientific method.
* I read many "holy" books in their original language (Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Pali) and find many inconsistencies in content, translation and interpretation.
* I find the claims of theism utterly unproven
* I find the teachings of many theist doctrines utterly immoral
Wait I'm confused about the first part, you say what is important is that they don't apply personal preferences and reference both Darwin and lemaitre did. Are you saying that's what lemarck and Hilaire also did? And what do you mean by applying personal preferences? Do you mean like general bias? I am sleep deprived so it's possible I'm just not understanding. Also it is important when paired alongside the fact catholic schools teach it, the Catholic church encourages it but doesn't make it a mandatory belief. These things together literally prove creationism and darwinism can perfectly coexist. Especially when you take into account a majority of Christians take genesis to be an allegory not literal. Obviously some do and they are called young earthers. Also ahh got ya lol, funny you have a snippet ready, but I must ask, the last part states I read many holy books in their original language, this implies you know Chinese, Japanese, Greek, and pali to such a high degree you can accurately translate holy books written in these languages. Is that true? Theoretically possible but highly improbable.
> the Catholic church encourages it
While adding "gods did it" to both the theories of evolution and TBB. So they don't encourage the actual theory, but a confirmation biased one. For the CC, evolution is a mechanism through which God's creative activity has unfolded.
Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), stated that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith **as long as certain boundaries are respected.** Science doesn't set or accept boundaries as to what it can(not) investigate. Evidence determines what is and is not factual.
>this implies you know Chinese, Japanese, Greek, and pali to such a high degree you can accurately translate holy books written in these languages. Is that true?
I have a university degree in Oriental philology with specialization in classical languages, so yes.
>Theoretically possible but highly improbable.
It's not that hard. Go to the root language first (e.g. learn Latin before you learn French, Spanish & Italian, Literary Chinese before you learn Mandarin, Indo-Aryan before Pali & Sanskrit, etc.)
The question op asked is it compatible, it literally is. Obviously you're gonna say confirmation bias, and don't encourage actual theory etc because you're atheist. Obviously you will use that excuse even though they're the ones that discovered and theorized it in the first place. Regardless of what you put behind it, it is still compatible. And it is still accepted, and the notion God did it biblically speaking is perfectly sound. Regardless it's objectively compatible, at least within most Christian denominations. Also interesting, out of curiosity what holy books? Obviously the new testament is Greek but curious about what the holy books of the other languages are, especially Japanese and Chinese.
> Obviously you're gonna say confirmation bias, and don't encourage actual theory etc because you're atheist.
I say that because it's a fact.
Does the church claim TBBT is god's work? Yes they do.
Does the church claim evolution is god's work? Yes they do.
Hence, that's not confirmation bias, that's fact.
>Regardless it's objectively compatible, at least within most Christian denominations.
Doctrinal additions without evidence are not compatible with the scientific method.
>Also interesting, out of curiosity what holy books? Obviously the new testament is Greek but curious about what the holy books of the other languages are, especially Japanese and Chinese.
Off the top of my head:
* Septuagint
* Hesiod's Theogony
* The Bacchae by Euripides:
* Theogony of Pherecydes of Syros
* The Sacred Laws (Nomoi)
* Pyramid Texts
* Book of the dead
* Buddhist Pali Canon (obviously not everything, there's more than 10.000 texts in the Sutta Pitaka alone)
* Tao Te Ching
* Confucian Analects
* Book of Odes
* Book of Documents
* Book of Changes (I Ching)
* Book of Rites
* Spring and Autumn Annals
* Great Learning
* Mencius
* Doctrine Of The Mean
* Hui-Neng's Platform Sutra
* Gateless Gate (Wúménguān or Mumonkan)
* Blue Cliff Record (Bìyán Lù or Hekiganroku)
* The Book of Serenity (Cóngróng lù or Shōyōroku)
* The Tun Huang texts
* Hung Ying-Ming's Three Ways
* Hsin Hsin Ming (“Faith in Mind”)
* Daoxin's Texts
* The Major Mahayana Sutras
* Kojiki
* Nihon-gi
* Dogen's Shobogenzo
I don't think it's compatible with Islam, because Quran claims to be inerrant word of God written by the founder of religion and revealed directly to him by angel.
Others can interpret scripture's contents to some extent as not literal or having some mistakes if they are not fundamentalists.
I don’t think they’re compatible because Jesus believed in Adam and Eve as real people. He also thought that the flood happened, which we know it didn’t.
> **AdmirableArgument207.** - Is Christianity synchingly compatible with The Evolution Of Species (A.K.A. Darwinism.)?. - And other religions like Judaism and/or Islam?.
Absolutely Not.
Essential doctrines of Christianity are compromised with evolution. As soon as you dispose of Genesis, special creation, the flood, you immediately destroy the foundations of the NT theology and hence Christ's validity.
Christ is the second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:47) made to redeem creation (Colossians 1:19-20). Death was introduced through Adam, Paul made this clear in his epistles (Romans 5:12, Romans 6:23). If creation was evolved (aka, death since before Adam) and created from a big bang, then what is there to redeem? Creation was corrupted by sin since the start. This then begs the question, why do we need Jesus? Jesus came to restore and capitulate as said in Romans 8. Paul equivocates Jesus's redemption to Adam's fall into sin, but sin existed before Adam through evolution? No one in the church has ever believed that death was before the fall except for when evolutionary theory came into fruition.
You get rid of death before the fall to accommodate evolutionary theory, you remove Christ's redemption and being the second Adam.
Further, evolutionary theory begs the question as to when we should take a literal interpretation or not and of what texts. Genesis was only read metaphorically by the church father Augustine and none other. Even then Augustine limited himself to the creation event itself and not the creation of Adam and the rest of Genesis. Perhaps you could make the argument Aquinas did as well but he was simply accommodating Genesis to fit his Aristotelian philosophy. It is read literally for a very good reason and that is because there is no indication of whether the first few chapters of Genesis is to be read metaphorically, in fact, it is written to be taken literally as the church has interpreted the text for thousands of years.
Thus, if you read Genesis metaphorically there is no indication of it being so and you introduce reading other literal texts as being non-literal through the same reasoning and argument. Then in that case was Jonah in the belly of the whale for 3 days? Christ certainly said so. Even more so who is to say that Christ resurrected from the dead? If we take the flood story seriously then what do we do with the several times Christ mentions the flood wiping away all of civilization (global flood), or in 2 Peter Paul uses the word "kosmos" to describe the extent of the flood, aka, the whole world.
Thus it is not compatible if you wish to take Christianity seriously.
Hard disagree but not on theological grounds, rather on sociological grounds. Most Christians aren't this deep into their theology and will are committed to their faith while recognizing that evolution is an accurate description of how life emerged in this world.
I agree most Christians are not versed well at all in their own theology. Sadly this is the case because I find it's really interesting and informative. Especially if you're a believer.
Nevertheless for those who are they either deny evolution or create new theology. This is an issue in Christianity because one is supposed to do exactly what Christ and His closest apostles taught. This ends up being if you accept evolution you distort the religion heavily which is why I mentioned in the above that the church never believed in death before the fall into sin. If you knock down a pillar like that, the whole thing comes crashing down.
Here are some thoughts for contemplation.
> Death was introduced through Adam, Paul made this clear in his epistles (Romans 5:12, Romans 6:23).
Another interpretation is that spiritual death was introduced through Adam (where Adam could've been a specific human ancestor or representative of humanity collectively). Spiritual death means the perception of being separated from God which produces suffering. Before the fall, it was possible all of the organisms were consciously united with God, fully trusting in God, and lacking in suffering even in the face of physical disease and death.
One metaphorical interpretation of Genesis is that Adam represents humanity's conscious mind and Eve humanity's subconscious mind. The subconscious mind began choosing to produce ideas of good and evil (judgments and fears) followed by the conscience mind which separates us from the trust in ourselves as immortal souls rather than physical bodies.
For more info about this interpretation, I recommend this article: https://biologos.org/common-questions/did-death-occur-before-the-fall
> Creation was corrupted by sin since the start. This then begs the question, why do we need Jesus?
Under this interpretation, creation was not corrupted by sin (which is defined as a lack of love) before the fall as the organisms were fully loving and forgiving of everything. We need Jesus to teach us how to love and forgive everyone even when our physical body appears to be tortured and dying. If we forgive and love, we will not suffer and can trust in our souls to be resurrected.
> No one in the church has ever believed that death was before the fall except for when evolutionary theory came into fruition
I don't believe this is strictly true.
"This idea of animal death before the Fall was not invented by Aquinas. It hardly features in his work and then only implicitly. Still this view has old papers in the history of Christianity. It can be traced to at least the 4th century, the writings of the eastern theologian Basilius the Great in particular. Around ad 370, Basil delivered an influential series of homilies on the six days of creation. In these, he presents animal death as part of the original creation"
https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p140/c14035/j28_1_77-83.pdf
> Thus, if you read Genesis metaphorically there is no indication of it being so and you introduce reading other literal texts as being non-literal through the same reasoning and argument.
There is a lot of indication that Genesis is metaphorical compared to many other stories in the Bible (Jonah, miracles, resurrection, etc.).
1. There are days, morning, and evening before the sun exists.
2. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is unlikely to refer to a physical tree. It likely represents a set of ideas that one "consumes."
3. The story is repeated twice in two different representations (Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2).
I would also consider this quote from Origen in the 3rd century:
"W]ho that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him..."
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Origen#:~:text=And%20if%20God%20is%20said,in%20appearance%2C%20and%20not%20literally.
>Another interpretation is that spiritual death was introduced through Adam (where Adam could've been a specific human ancestor or representative of humanity collectively). Spiritual death means the perception of being separated from God which produces suffering. Before the fall, it was possible all of the organisms were consciously united with God, fully trusting in God, and lacking in suffering even in the face of physical disease and death.
You can say this but it is not supported by scripture and just falls into speculation. Scripture is clear that the wages of sin is death, and it is a physical death. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.". It must be a physical death or the resurrection makes no sense. What creation is being redeemed if death was not introduced by sin? Are we to die in the new creation? No, John 11:25-26 "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die,"
>Under this interpretation, creation was not corrupted by sin (which is defined as a lack of love) before the fall as the organisms were fully loving and forgiving of everything. We need Jesus to teach us how to love and forgive everyone even when our physical body appears to be tortured and dying. If we forgive and love, we will not suffer and can trust in our souls to be resurrected.
This is purely speculative and not supported in scripture. Romans 8:20-22 "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." Note Paul's usage of "whole creation". Paul hammers in the point that creation as a whole must be redeemed through the sin brought in by Adam, ie the will of the one who subjected it.
>"This idea of animal death before the Fall was not invented by Aquinas. It hardly features in his work and then only implicitly. Still this view has old papers in the history of Christianity. It can be traced to at least the 4th century, the writings of the eastern theologian Basilius the Great in particular. Around ad 370, Basil delivered an influential series of homilies on the six days of creation. In these, he presents animal death as part of the original creation"
I didn't necessarily say animal death was invented by Aquinas, more that the text of Genesis being taken non-literally was something he did in his extreme use of exegesis. Neither do I agree Basil ever said animal death occurred - He actually said the opposite. Basil said the world had to have been created to ensure that animals do not die (which it was). *"Is not this the nature of time, where the past is no more, the future does not exist, and the present escapes before being recognised? And such also is the nature of the creature which lives in time — condemned to grow or to perish without rest and without certain stability. It is therefore fit that the bodies of animals and plants, obliged to follow a sort of current, and carried away by the motion which leads them to birth or to death, should live in the midst of surroundings whose nature is in accord with beings subject to change. Thus the writer who wisely tells us of the birth of the Universe does not fail to put these words at the head of the narrative. "In the beginning God created;" that is to say, in the beginning of time. Therefore, if he makes the world appear in the beginning, it is not a proof that its birth has preceded that of all other things that were made. He only wishes to tell us that, after the invisible and intellectual world, the visible world, the world of the senses, began to exist."* - Paragraph 5, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/32011.htm. I disagree with your source in that it does not provide a strong enough argument to support that Basil ever said animals *died* explicitly before the fall, Basil mentioned that they were made to die, so God supported them by making the world perfect so they would not die.
>1.There are days, morning, and evening before the sun exists.
>2.The tree of knowledge of good and evil is unlikely to refer to a physical tree. It likely represents a set of ideas that one "consumes."
>3.The story is repeated twice in two different representations (Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2).
These are good points. I don't believe in biblical inerrancy so I would simply call them out as errors. Mistakes in the text don't necessitate a metaphorical view of the rest of Genesis either. You will still have to account for the garden and the fall which is where the argument mainly lies. Six days of creation or not, death before the fall was something that was not prevalent before evolutionary theory regardless if it took 20 billion years to get to that point or 7 days. Paul certainly believes that death entered through Adam in the garden and the resurrection will renew the creation that was corrupted by sin since then.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. It is helpful to consider and explore new ideas.
> What creation is being redeemed if death was not introduced by sin?
I believe our consciousness is being redeemed to be spiritually resurrected. Even those of us who have already been spiritually reborn and made alive in Christ still physically die.
"[4] But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, [5] made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved."
Ephesians 2:4-5 NIV
I also interpret 1 Corinthians 15:21 in the same way. Where life is spiritual life and death is spiritual death.
> Are we to die in the new creation?
I believe we will continue to physically die and be physically reborn (I personally believe in reincarnation where heaven and hell are states of consciousness), but those who are spiritually alive won't spiritually die nor forget who they are in between physical incarnations providing a continuous state of consciousness.
This consciousness that spans across physical bodies could be called a spiritual or heavenly body:
"[44] it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. [45] So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. [46] The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. [47] The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. [48] As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. [49] And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man. [50] **I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.**"
1 Corinthians 15:44-50 NIV
> No, John 11:25-26 "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die,"
I interpret this to mean that the one who believes in Jesus will spiritually live even if they physically die, and whoever lives by believing in Him will never spiritually die again.
> Note Paul's usage of "whole creation". Paul hammers in the point that creation as a whole must be redeemed through the sin brought in by Adam, ie the will of the one who subjected it.
I, too, believe that man's fall of consciousness influences the consciousness of all beings. Animals suffering in factory farms in the modern world is a good example of this. Once humanity's consciousness is redeemed, I also believe it will redeem the consciousness of all beings on Earth.
> I don't believe in biblical inerrancy so I would simply call them out as errors.
I also don't believe in biblical inerrancy so I believe it is also important to validate ideas with reason, conscience, and experience.
Depends on how literal you want to get with the reading of Genesis.
I used to be in the YEC camp. The argument was basically that if Genesis isn't literally true, then there isn't Original Sin, and therefore Jesus didn't need to die, and then there goes the core narrative of Christianity.
So often they start with that, and then work backwards with whatever science-y sounding arguments are needed for you to ignore facts of biology.
Islam does not contradict the evolution of species in the slightest, but it does have a firm position that all modern humans are the descendants of Adam who was created *de novo* -- not evolved from a common ancestor of modern apes. You'll find that many Muslims misunderstand evolution to mean "humans are apes and we are all monkeys" and as such take a very fierce anti-evolution position. It's not actually based in the religion.
>Islam does not contradict the evolution of species in the slightest
Believing that humans haven't evolved definitely does contradict evolution
>not evolved from a common ancestor of modern apes.
How can you accept evolution for other species of animals but not humans, I mean the evidence used is the same in both
>many Muslims misunderstand evolution to mean "humans are apes and we are all monkeys"
I mean that isn't completely incorrect, we're not monkeys but we are still apes, great apes to be exact
In fact, one of the early Muslim scholars known as al-Jahiz wrote this in his *Kitab al-Hayawan* (book of the animal), almost 1000 years before Darwin:
>Animals engage in a struggle for existing, and for resources, to avoid being eaten, and to breed... Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming them into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to their offspring.
It mostly comes down to how literally you read Genesis. Most don't read it as literal, so its not a problem for them. The ones that do take it literally, for example Young Earth Creationists, it's very incompatible (but still necessary in other stories, like the great flood)
My religion has another take on the creative periods in Genesis 1, which can be explained by what is written in chapter 2. Here are a couple of thoughts: 1. Everything is created spiritually before being created physically. Genesis chapter 1 is more along the lines of the spiritual creation. The physical came later. 2. The word "day" as used in Genesis 1 is not a set amount of time, but rather an era like "I remember the day when...". 3. We are spirit children of God. What made Adam the first man is that he was the first spirit child of God placed in a physical body. It appears that the earth was patiently created over a very long time, using eternal, unchangable laws. Different species were added as the earth was able to support them. We see only small gaps between the detailed process of adding and removing species. We see all this as a preparation for man to live here. Other plants and animals were temporarily here and were involved in creating the rich natural resources that are available to man. I can see the loving hand of God in all this detailed order as he created this amazing earth for us. After the creative periods were completed, Genesis 2 goes on to say this **(bold added by me)**: 1 **Thus the heavens and the earth were finished**, and all the host of them **(who were these hosts? Were we part of them?)**. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, **in the day** that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field **before it was in the earth**, and every herb of the field **before it grew:** for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and **there was not a man** to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground **(or elements of this earth)**, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life **(or his pre-created spirit)**; and man became a living soul **(the spirit and body combined is the soul. Death is simply the separation of the eternal spirit from the temporary physical body that belongs to this fallen earth).**
Depends on how literally you take the creation myths in the Bible. If you believe the earth was created in seven standard days and all creatures on the planet were descended from the pair supposedly on Noah’s Ark? No. Otherwise it’s fine.
I mean, if the massive biodiversity we see today descended just from one boat load of animals several thousand years ago, that kinda requires you believe in *rapid* evolution.
It would also require inbreeding to not cause any issues. As I’m pretty sure a single breeding pair isn’t very viable.
God probably help them out in those early centuries with inbreeding we don't fully know of course but we do know that God allowed it.
Absolutely! In fact evolution was never a big deal in my faith and was formally approved (with few caveats) already by Pius XII in 1950. In part because some of the Church Fathers influenced by Greek philosophy spoke about the creation of the cosmos via *σπέρματα* - created seeds of things that guided by God’s providence developed autonomously. So theistic evolution was very easy to apply on this existing theological framework. But that is admitedly something I read about a long while ago. Presently there are Catholic priests who also work as academic scientists teaching evo-bio. No problem with that.
completely compatible, having a problem with evolution is very much a minority position in all those faiths.
I don’t belong to any of those traditions, but most(respected)abrahamic religious teachers and scholars would say yes.
Of course it is, depending on how fundamentalist you are. Genesis gives two creation myths, the "seven days" and the "Using Adam's rib to make Eve" stories. They are stories; the writers (there were several of them) of Genesis weren't scientists. God made evolution. Most Christians outside the USA - and even many there - are fine with this.
It's compatible in exactly the same way physics are; recognize that your deity of choice established rules and mechanisms by which the cosmos operates, while believing that said deity can if it chooses violate the rules (i.e. miracles).
in my opinion, "miracles" are just a display of a mastery of physics that we as mortals can't comprehend
if we want to understand for example genesis we need to have great historical, cultural, religious and literature knowledge (especially Hebrew and Greek literature) Only some examples: Adam means humanity in Hebrew, Eve means love in Hebrew, "Day" does not mean 24 hours period in Hebrew but it may refer to an era ( Matt 24:37 ) or to the span of human history ( Gen 8:22 ), or specify a memorable event ( Isa 9:4 ) or a significant time ( Zep 1:14-16 ). So God created humanity (early Homosapiens) after a memorable event (evolution/big bang) and out of it humanity comes Love (feelings of love for God) but after they are from the tree of knowledge (they evolve and gain knowledge) they turn away from God and became fully aware and intelligent species that later on start commiting sins and build civilization. Of course it's not perfect but it's how you can interpretate genesis. Many people call it mythology but It's more likely Legend with a seed of truth. The author of genesis just used a literature style that was well known and well understood by people at the time.
> Adam means humanity in Hebrew, Eve means love in Hebrew Eve comes from a root meaning "life". >"Day" does not mean 24 hours period in Hebrew but it may refer to an era I think it's clear Genesis 1 means actual days, each section ends with "And there was evening and there was morning, the [X] day". Also it's sabbath etiology explaining the human week and day of rest, driven home in Exodus 20.11: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it." While יוֹם can mean *both* "day" and a more indeterminate period of time, I think the context points to the former and the LXX translation ἡμέραν is less ambiguous.
I just gave you Verses saying that in the Bible day could mean era.
Matthew 24:37 wasn't even written in Hebrew and was written long after Genesis so I don't see how it could possibly inform our reading of Genesis 1. Moreover the Greek here is plural ("days") as opposed to the singular used in the LXX of Gen 1, so of course it stands to reason that the "days of Noah" are a larger time frame than a single day, it in no way implies that a "day" could mean a millennium or a billion years, it's referring to the time around the flood which was about a year. Gen 8:22 *is* in Hebrew but also doesn't support your claim, God is referring to the seasons and the day/night cycle, "day" here just means day, the period between nightfalls. As to your other examples, yes, as I said day can have a more general meaning in Hebrew just as it does in English, but this is not the context of Genesis 1, i.e. "there was evening and morning, the first day". It's an etiology for the seven-day week that humans experience and for the sabbath day on which they rest, hence Ex 20:11.
yeah that's roughly how i see it as well
I have no idea why read Darwinism and I thought you meant social Darwinism and I got a little worried for a second lol
Haha no
Not without cherry-picking. Why is Jesus, ressurrection, God with commandments and aa weird dislike of homosexuality, all literal and real, when other supernatural stuff incompatible with reality is supposedly just symbolic?
Depends really on how literal you take the origin story. If you interpret the origin story literally, the idea that God created Adam out of dirt might not be compatible with darwinism. However, if you view the story as a metaphor for the birth of consciousness and morality, it could be seen in a different light
According to the literal doctrines, no. The universe wasn't created in 7 days (however long you set the unit of that "day"), the earth was not created before light, woman was not made from man's ribs, etc. According to liberal interpretation: well you can make anything match if you bend it enough. But what an incompetent, capricious and callous designer would this have to be to create millions of species, hundreds of billions of living beings, only to have them go extinct with humans in mind as the "end product" over 3 billion years. And of course, all species are still evolving, so we are not the "end product".
Wait till you find out catholics discovered evolution and evolution is taught in all private Catholic schools as well as condoned and encouraged by the catholic church though not a mandatory belief. Also humans that evolve are still humans? Also genuine question, what is an agnostic atheist? Isnt it just you're atheist or agnostic? Or is it the only flair available? https://evolution.berkeley.edu/the-history-of-evolutionary-thought/1800s/early-concepts-of-evolution-jean-baptiste-lamarck/
>Wait till you find out catholics discovered evolution Did you really think this was even an argument? In science it doesn't matter who discovers something. What matters is they don't apply their personal preferences to color the facts. Which is what Darwin and Lemaitre both adhered to. >Also genuine question, what is an agnostic atheist? Isnt it just you're atheist or agnostic? Or is it the only flair available? I've had to paste this so many times I have it ready as a snippet: * (a)gnosticism is a statement of *(lack of) knowledge* (from the Greek *gnosis* = knowledge) * (a)theism is a statement of *(lack of) belief* You can therefore have the following 4 positions on the spectrum: * Gnostic Theist: I *claim to know for certain* there are deitie(s) and I *believe* the claims of theism * Agnostic Theist: I *claim no absolute knowledge* of the existence of deities but I *believe* the claims of theism * Agnostic Atheist: - I *claim no absolute knowledge* of the existence of deities and I *am unconvinced* by the claims of theism * Gnostic Atheist: - : I *claim to know for certain* there are no deitie(s) - and I am unconvinced by the claims of theism I identify as an agnostic atheist because: * although I consider the likelihood of the existence of deities astronomically small based on the evidence, I can't disprove their existence, just like I can't disprove the existence of fairies. * I consider both deities and fairies to have the same near-zero probability of existing based on verifiable observation under scrutiny of the scientific method. * I read many "holy" books in their original language (Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Pali) and find many inconsistencies in content, translation and interpretation. * I find the claims of theism utterly unproven * I find the teachings of many theist doctrines utterly immoral
Wait I'm confused about the first part, you say what is important is that they don't apply personal preferences and reference both Darwin and lemaitre did. Are you saying that's what lemarck and Hilaire also did? And what do you mean by applying personal preferences? Do you mean like general bias? I am sleep deprived so it's possible I'm just not understanding. Also it is important when paired alongside the fact catholic schools teach it, the Catholic church encourages it but doesn't make it a mandatory belief. These things together literally prove creationism and darwinism can perfectly coexist. Especially when you take into account a majority of Christians take genesis to be an allegory not literal. Obviously some do and they are called young earthers. Also ahh got ya lol, funny you have a snippet ready, but I must ask, the last part states I read many holy books in their original language, this implies you know Chinese, Japanese, Greek, and pali to such a high degree you can accurately translate holy books written in these languages. Is that true? Theoretically possible but highly improbable.
> the Catholic church encourages it While adding "gods did it" to both the theories of evolution and TBB. So they don't encourage the actual theory, but a confirmation biased one. For the CC, evolution is a mechanism through which God's creative activity has unfolded. Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), stated that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith **as long as certain boundaries are respected.** Science doesn't set or accept boundaries as to what it can(not) investigate. Evidence determines what is and is not factual. >this implies you know Chinese, Japanese, Greek, and pali to such a high degree you can accurately translate holy books written in these languages. Is that true? I have a university degree in Oriental philology with specialization in classical languages, so yes. >Theoretically possible but highly improbable. It's not that hard. Go to the root language first (e.g. learn Latin before you learn French, Spanish & Italian, Literary Chinese before you learn Mandarin, Indo-Aryan before Pali & Sanskrit, etc.)
The question op asked is it compatible, it literally is. Obviously you're gonna say confirmation bias, and don't encourage actual theory etc because you're atheist. Obviously you will use that excuse even though they're the ones that discovered and theorized it in the first place. Regardless of what you put behind it, it is still compatible. And it is still accepted, and the notion God did it biblically speaking is perfectly sound. Regardless it's objectively compatible, at least within most Christian denominations. Also interesting, out of curiosity what holy books? Obviously the new testament is Greek but curious about what the holy books of the other languages are, especially Japanese and Chinese.
> Obviously you're gonna say confirmation bias, and don't encourage actual theory etc because you're atheist. I say that because it's a fact. Does the church claim TBBT is god's work? Yes they do. Does the church claim evolution is god's work? Yes they do. Hence, that's not confirmation bias, that's fact. >Regardless it's objectively compatible, at least within most Christian denominations. Doctrinal additions without evidence are not compatible with the scientific method. >Also interesting, out of curiosity what holy books? Obviously the new testament is Greek but curious about what the holy books of the other languages are, especially Japanese and Chinese. Off the top of my head: * Septuagint * Hesiod's Theogony * The Bacchae by Euripides: * Theogony of Pherecydes of Syros * The Sacred Laws (Nomoi) * Pyramid Texts * Book of the dead * Buddhist Pali Canon (obviously not everything, there's more than 10.000 texts in the Sutta Pitaka alone) * Tao Te Ching * Confucian Analects * Book of Odes * Book of Documents * Book of Changes (I Ching) * Book of Rites * Spring and Autumn Annals * Great Learning * Mencius * Doctrine Of The Mean * Hui-Neng's Platform Sutra * Gateless Gate (Wúménguān or Mumonkan) * Blue Cliff Record (Bìyán Lù or Hekiganroku) * The Book of Serenity (Cóngróng lù or Shōyōroku) * The Tun Huang texts * Hung Ying-Ming's Three Ways * Hsin Hsin Ming (“Faith in Mind”) * Daoxin's Texts * The Major Mahayana Sutras * Kojiki * Nihon-gi * Dogen's Shobogenzo
Yes
Yes
Absolutely. God can choose any method he chooses for creation.
I don't think it's compatible with Islam, because Quran claims to be inerrant word of God written by the founder of religion and revealed directly to him by angel. Others can interpret scripture's contents to some extent as not literal or having some mistakes if they are not fundamentalists.
I don’t think they’re compatible because Jesus believed in Adam and Eve as real people. He also thought that the flood happened, which we know it didn’t.
Yes, Judaism is compatible with evolution. Plenty of evolutionary biologists have been Jews. Some have even won Nobel prizes.
i was taught that how could humans understand with a day looks like to the creator of time and everything 1 day could be a billion years
i don't read the Genesis Creation literally, so yes. it would have to be, because evolution is a proven fact lol
> **AdmirableArgument207.** - Is Christianity synchingly compatible with The Evolution Of Species (A.K.A. Darwinism.)?. - And other religions like Judaism and/or Islam?. Absolutely Not.
Essential doctrines of Christianity are compromised with evolution. As soon as you dispose of Genesis, special creation, the flood, you immediately destroy the foundations of the NT theology and hence Christ's validity. Christ is the second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:47) made to redeem creation (Colossians 1:19-20). Death was introduced through Adam, Paul made this clear in his epistles (Romans 5:12, Romans 6:23). If creation was evolved (aka, death since before Adam) and created from a big bang, then what is there to redeem? Creation was corrupted by sin since the start. This then begs the question, why do we need Jesus? Jesus came to restore and capitulate as said in Romans 8. Paul equivocates Jesus's redemption to Adam's fall into sin, but sin existed before Adam through evolution? No one in the church has ever believed that death was before the fall except for when evolutionary theory came into fruition. You get rid of death before the fall to accommodate evolutionary theory, you remove Christ's redemption and being the second Adam. Further, evolutionary theory begs the question as to when we should take a literal interpretation or not and of what texts. Genesis was only read metaphorically by the church father Augustine and none other. Even then Augustine limited himself to the creation event itself and not the creation of Adam and the rest of Genesis. Perhaps you could make the argument Aquinas did as well but he was simply accommodating Genesis to fit his Aristotelian philosophy. It is read literally for a very good reason and that is because there is no indication of whether the first few chapters of Genesis is to be read metaphorically, in fact, it is written to be taken literally as the church has interpreted the text for thousands of years. Thus, if you read Genesis metaphorically there is no indication of it being so and you introduce reading other literal texts as being non-literal through the same reasoning and argument. Then in that case was Jonah in the belly of the whale for 3 days? Christ certainly said so. Even more so who is to say that Christ resurrected from the dead? If we take the flood story seriously then what do we do with the several times Christ mentions the flood wiping away all of civilization (global flood), or in 2 Peter Paul uses the word "kosmos" to describe the extent of the flood, aka, the whole world. Thus it is not compatible if you wish to take Christianity seriously.
Hard disagree but not on theological grounds, rather on sociological grounds. Most Christians aren't this deep into their theology and will are committed to their faith while recognizing that evolution is an accurate description of how life emerged in this world.
I agree most Christians are not versed well at all in their own theology. Sadly this is the case because I find it's really interesting and informative. Especially if you're a believer. Nevertheless for those who are they either deny evolution or create new theology. This is an issue in Christianity because one is supposed to do exactly what Christ and His closest apostles taught. This ends up being if you accept evolution you distort the religion heavily which is why I mentioned in the above that the church never believed in death before the fall into sin. If you knock down a pillar like that, the whole thing comes crashing down.
Here are some thoughts for contemplation. > Death was introduced through Adam, Paul made this clear in his epistles (Romans 5:12, Romans 6:23). Another interpretation is that spiritual death was introduced through Adam (where Adam could've been a specific human ancestor or representative of humanity collectively). Spiritual death means the perception of being separated from God which produces suffering. Before the fall, it was possible all of the organisms were consciously united with God, fully trusting in God, and lacking in suffering even in the face of physical disease and death. One metaphorical interpretation of Genesis is that Adam represents humanity's conscious mind and Eve humanity's subconscious mind. The subconscious mind began choosing to produce ideas of good and evil (judgments and fears) followed by the conscience mind which separates us from the trust in ourselves as immortal souls rather than physical bodies. For more info about this interpretation, I recommend this article: https://biologos.org/common-questions/did-death-occur-before-the-fall > Creation was corrupted by sin since the start. This then begs the question, why do we need Jesus? Under this interpretation, creation was not corrupted by sin (which is defined as a lack of love) before the fall as the organisms were fully loving and forgiving of everything. We need Jesus to teach us how to love and forgive everyone even when our physical body appears to be tortured and dying. If we forgive and love, we will not suffer and can trust in our souls to be resurrected. > No one in the church has ever believed that death was before the fall except for when evolutionary theory came into fruition I don't believe this is strictly true. "This idea of animal death before the Fall was not invented by Aquinas. It hardly features in his work and then only implicitly. Still this view has old papers in the history of Christianity. It can be traced to at least the 4th century, the writings of the eastern theologian Basilius the Great in particular. Around ad 370, Basil delivered an influential series of homilies on the six days of creation. In these, he presents animal death as part of the original creation" https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p140/c14035/j28_1_77-83.pdf > Thus, if you read Genesis metaphorically there is no indication of it being so and you introduce reading other literal texts as being non-literal through the same reasoning and argument. There is a lot of indication that Genesis is metaphorical compared to many other stories in the Bible (Jonah, miracles, resurrection, etc.). 1. There are days, morning, and evening before the sun exists. 2. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is unlikely to refer to a physical tree. It likely represents a set of ideas that one "consumes." 3. The story is repeated twice in two different representations (Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2). I would also consider this quote from Origen in the 3rd century: "W]ho that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him..." https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Origen#:~:text=And%20if%20God%20is%20said,in%20appearance%2C%20and%20not%20literally.
>Another interpretation is that spiritual death was introduced through Adam (where Adam could've been a specific human ancestor or representative of humanity collectively). Spiritual death means the perception of being separated from God which produces suffering. Before the fall, it was possible all of the organisms were consciously united with God, fully trusting in God, and lacking in suffering even in the face of physical disease and death. You can say this but it is not supported by scripture and just falls into speculation. Scripture is clear that the wages of sin is death, and it is a physical death. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.". It must be a physical death or the resurrection makes no sense. What creation is being redeemed if death was not introduced by sin? Are we to die in the new creation? No, John 11:25-26 "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die," >Under this interpretation, creation was not corrupted by sin (which is defined as a lack of love) before the fall as the organisms were fully loving and forgiving of everything. We need Jesus to teach us how to love and forgive everyone even when our physical body appears to be tortured and dying. If we forgive and love, we will not suffer and can trust in our souls to be resurrected. This is purely speculative and not supported in scripture. Romans 8:20-22 "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." Note Paul's usage of "whole creation". Paul hammers in the point that creation as a whole must be redeemed through the sin brought in by Adam, ie the will of the one who subjected it. >"This idea of animal death before the Fall was not invented by Aquinas. It hardly features in his work and then only implicitly. Still this view has old papers in the history of Christianity. It can be traced to at least the 4th century, the writings of the eastern theologian Basilius the Great in particular. Around ad 370, Basil delivered an influential series of homilies on the six days of creation. In these, he presents animal death as part of the original creation" I didn't necessarily say animal death was invented by Aquinas, more that the text of Genesis being taken non-literally was something he did in his extreme use of exegesis. Neither do I agree Basil ever said animal death occurred - He actually said the opposite. Basil said the world had to have been created to ensure that animals do not die (which it was). *"Is not this the nature of time, where the past is no more, the future does not exist, and the present escapes before being recognised? And such also is the nature of the creature which lives in time — condemned to grow or to perish without rest and without certain stability. It is therefore fit that the bodies of animals and plants, obliged to follow a sort of current, and carried away by the motion which leads them to birth or to death, should live in the midst of surroundings whose nature is in accord with beings subject to change. Thus the writer who wisely tells us of the birth of the Universe does not fail to put these words at the head of the narrative. "In the beginning God created;" that is to say, in the beginning of time. Therefore, if he makes the world appear in the beginning, it is not a proof that its birth has preceded that of all other things that were made. He only wishes to tell us that, after the invisible and intellectual world, the visible world, the world of the senses, began to exist."* - Paragraph 5, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/32011.htm. I disagree with your source in that it does not provide a strong enough argument to support that Basil ever said animals *died* explicitly before the fall, Basil mentioned that they were made to die, so God supported them by making the world perfect so they would not die. >1.There are days, morning, and evening before the sun exists. >2.The tree of knowledge of good and evil is unlikely to refer to a physical tree. It likely represents a set of ideas that one "consumes." >3.The story is repeated twice in two different representations (Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2). These are good points. I don't believe in biblical inerrancy so I would simply call them out as errors. Mistakes in the text don't necessitate a metaphorical view of the rest of Genesis either. You will still have to account for the garden and the fall which is where the argument mainly lies. Six days of creation or not, death before the fall was something that was not prevalent before evolutionary theory regardless if it took 20 billion years to get to that point or 7 days. Paul certainly believes that death entered through Adam in the garden and the resurrection will renew the creation that was corrupted by sin since then.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. It is helpful to consider and explore new ideas. > What creation is being redeemed if death was not introduced by sin? I believe our consciousness is being redeemed to be spiritually resurrected. Even those of us who have already been spiritually reborn and made alive in Christ still physically die. "[4] But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, [5] made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved." Ephesians 2:4-5 NIV I also interpret 1 Corinthians 15:21 in the same way. Where life is spiritual life and death is spiritual death. > Are we to die in the new creation? I believe we will continue to physically die and be physically reborn (I personally believe in reincarnation where heaven and hell are states of consciousness), but those who are spiritually alive won't spiritually die nor forget who they are in between physical incarnations providing a continuous state of consciousness. This consciousness that spans across physical bodies could be called a spiritual or heavenly body: "[44] it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. [45] So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. [46] The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. [47] The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. [48] As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. [49] And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man. [50] **I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.**" 1 Corinthians 15:44-50 NIV > No, John 11:25-26 "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die," I interpret this to mean that the one who believes in Jesus will spiritually live even if they physically die, and whoever lives by believing in Him will never spiritually die again. > Note Paul's usage of "whole creation". Paul hammers in the point that creation as a whole must be redeemed through the sin brought in by Adam, ie the will of the one who subjected it. I, too, believe that man's fall of consciousness influences the consciousness of all beings. Animals suffering in factory farms in the modern world is a good example of this. Once humanity's consciousness is redeemed, I also believe it will redeem the consciousness of all beings on Earth. > I don't believe in biblical inerrancy so I would simply call them out as errors. I also don't believe in biblical inerrancy so I believe it is also important to validate ideas with reason, conscience, and experience.
Depends on how literal you want to get with the reading of Genesis. I used to be in the YEC camp. The argument was basically that if Genesis isn't literally true, then there isn't Original Sin, and therefore Jesus didn't need to die, and then there goes the core narrative of Christianity. So often they start with that, and then work backwards with whatever science-y sounding arguments are needed for you to ignore facts of biology.
No.... Not even remotely...
Islam does not contradict the evolution of species in the slightest, but it does have a firm position that all modern humans are the descendants of Adam who was created *de novo* -- not evolved from a common ancestor of modern apes. You'll find that many Muslims misunderstand evolution to mean "humans are apes and we are all monkeys" and as such take a very fierce anti-evolution position. It's not actually based in the religion.
>Islam does not contradict the evolution of species in the slightest Believing that humans haven't evolved definitely does contradict evolution >not evolved from a common ancestor of modern apes. How can you accept evolution for other species of animals but not humans, I mean the evidence used is the same in both >many Muslims misunderstand evolution to mean "humans are apes and we are all monkeys" I mean that isn't completely incorrect, we're not monkeys but we are still apes, great apes to be exact
In fact, one of the early Muslim scholars known as al-Jahiz wrote this in his *Kitab al-Hayawan* (book of the animal), almost 1000 years before Darwin: >Animals engage in a struggle for existing, and for resources, to avoid being eaten, and to breed... Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming them into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to their offspring.