Discuss why Believers disagree on this topic. Understand that disagreement may hinge on whether individuals Christians see the Bible as literal or inspired.
Questions to ask as you reply:
Have I prayed about this topic?
Are my sources credible? (Scholars fired from an academic setting for plagiarism or other academic dishonesty would not be acceptable, nor would a scholar whose field or research is far from the subjects of biology or biblical criticism)
Do different scripture translations agree in the word studies?
Iâm going to ask a dumb question. Why do you believe in evolution? What led up to your belief in evolution? Why do you think that the bible doesnât have anything to do with science?
Scientific research and collected data. This is commonly available with a Google search, if you donât want to read entire books on the topic. Documentation from credible experts whose work is scrutinized by others in the field.
Ancient writers of scripture did not have the knowledge needed to understand change over time. They used what they did have to create a framework for beginnings.
Trying to disprove evolution with scripture cheapens the Bible and detracts from its purpose: to give us all we need to live for God. It gives us guidelines, analogies, and examples to follow. The Bible is not a science book. It also canât tell us about baseball, clocks, electricity because the writers had no knowledge of these things and because that is not the purpose of the scripture.
I believe the Bible is inspired by God but written by humans. It wasnât dictated word for word to the writers.
That word âinspiredâ could, from the original Greek, be rendered as âGod breathed.â
The book of Genesis is a book of history. God gave us the book of Genesis so that we could see the origin of sin and the need for Godâs redemption. And to say that using the bible to disprove evolution cheapens the bible, is erroneous. Itâs the equivalent of saying that God doesnât care about how we think we came about, and He does.
Genesis is not a history at all. It is an attempt to explain how humans came about, using what people saw at the time.
Evolution is the study of change over time. How creatures evolve. Why would anyone take a very detailed, nuanced field of study and try to dismiss it with a small amount of scripture ? Is God unable to use evolution in His world building?
Should God have explained in detail how it works to the writers? Or did He give them the limited knowledge their minds could understand- much like the sun standing still in Joshua? None of this changed the majesty and usefulness of the Bible. Evolution is a more detailed account.
So, was God lying when he said through Paul that all scripture was inspired by God? Remember, in Paulâs time, the Old Testament (OT) was scripture; it was the only scripture they had.
I think it would be important to the conversation to have you define âevolutionâ which youâve mentioned as âchange over time.â Defined with such simplicity, youâd probably find that most Christians would agree that âthe worldâ does change over time. Geology, geography, languages, attitudes, practices, technology, ideas and even whole nations⌠all of these things you could say âevolve.â
But that is much different than saying that we came from a speck of bacteria carried on a space rock that learned to swim and then walk and then fly and then order a Big Mac.
I was speaking to @Historyprof - the one who used the term âchange over time.â
-but I should have replied to that post directly for clarity.
The way you define evolution is much different than the way @Historyprof did, which is why I asked for further explanation, rather than making an assumption.
I was given the basic overview of evolution without prejudice. I reached my own conclusions by remembering what I learned in Sunday School. My dad and grandad referred me to AIG and ICR for scientific backup.
The OP talks about use of credible sources. Those two groups have been discounted for claims that have been proven false. Please show some scientists with credible backgrounds who can support your claims.
Ken Hamm is not in that category. He had lost every debate with an actual scientist he has participated in- and made Christians look stupid since he represents a portion of us but certainly not most.
These guys are qualified all right. If I remember correctly, Brian Tomas actually is a former evolutionist. Iâll see if I can find his testimony for you.
I know you are and I once thought like you do now. I went to a very, very strict a Christian school and was taught incorrectly in most every subject. The school hired pastors instead of educators. This made the first year if college rough.
I was also taught that all Christians believed what I was being taught. When I later found out the truth, it took a while to work through the damage.
