can A baptist Believe In Theistic Evolution?

I don't understand the point you are attempting to make here.

The reason I don't interpret "yom" as a 24-hour day in Genesis 1 is that I believe the context does not warrant it based on what is written in Genesis 2. I believe Genesis 2 is as inspired as Genesis 1, and I'm not one of those people who believe that the two chapters contradict. Since there is an obvious contradiction in the way "yom" is used in Genesis 2:4 (as opposed to Genesis 1) and the order of the creation of the woman is in a difference sequence, I have to reconsider whether or not Genesis 1 is intended to describe the method by which God created or whether it has another purpose.

My entry into this discussion was simply to point out that the Hebrew does not necessarily advocate a 24-hour day, no matter how many times you'll hear people claim it. Genesis 2:4 (among many others) demolishes that assertion. And since Genesis 2 was likely written or compiled about the same time as Genesis 1, it is the strongest kind of evidence that it is not an example of language evolving or getting "looser" in meaning.

I find it interesting that, for the most part, OE advocates are arguing the text of the creation narratives while YE advocates are reaching for proof texts outside of the area of immediate interest or attacking the perceived beliefs, motivations and actions of the OE advocates.

Other than Steadfast Fred, I don't recall seeing too many YE advocates dealing with what Genesis 2:4 actually says.

Regarding other references to six days of creation in scripture, they do not necessarily support six day creation since the Hebrews often used metaphor in this way to describe a spiritual concept, not a literal reality. For instance, the Hebrews often spoke of the 12 tribes of Israel when there were actually 13! Joseph's sons, Ephriam and Menasseh, were given the status of independent tribes when Israel (Jacob) claimed them as his own children in Genesis 48.

 

Maybe the Earth rotated reeeeal slowly back then!

And how did plantlife that was created on the third day survive for long ages without sunlight that was created on the fourth day, and insects that were created on the sixth day?

You cannot reconcile the Genesis account with modern science. The Genesis account has the Earth created before the Sun, Moon, or stars. There was light before the Sun was created, the first animal mentioned is the greatest ever, the whale, while science says the first animal life was the smallest, one celled life.

So, you pretty much have to accept one or the other, time is only one of many problems involved, modern science and the creation account cannot be reconciled.

 

I am suggesting that you criticized the other poster for your view that he was not giving other views a fair and reasonable hearing and then you dismiss his argument in the exact same way he dismissed another. You are being inconsistent and not very fair. You come across as presenting your argument as the only possible one that is reasonable and criticize the opposite argument as not being fair in consideration.

As far as Gen 2:4 there is no issue. the word "toldah" could equally be translated as history, decent, or birth.

 

I have not read this entire thread.
But I do know this:

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)

When the word "yom" is used with a numeral, as it is above (6th day), it always refers to a 24 hour day. That much is true. And that is how the word is used in Genesis chapter one.

Consider some other evidence:
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day. (Genesis 1:12-13)
--Notice that trees yielding fruit were created the third day. This is very significant.

The sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day.

On the fifth day, God created water life and the fowls of the air.

On the sixth day, God created:
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:24-25)
--And then he created man.

Now the plants were created on the third day. If the days were a thousand years (or million or whatever), then so were the nights, correct?
First, none of the plants would even make it through a thousand year night until the creation of the sun. Plants need sunlight to survive. Every day, if a thousand years, is also a thousand nights, correct? "And the evening and the morning...." There was both night and day in a 24 hour day. What about a thousand year day? 500 years of each, or 1000 years of each? Either way the plants would not make it.

Now take it a step further. The plants were made on the third day, but the "creeping things", i.e., insects were not created until the sixth day, or three thousand years and three thousand nights later. Insects, especially bees are absolutely necessary for the pollination of fruit trees and many other plants. The plants would not be able to exist without the bees, and the bees cannot exist without the plants. They exist off of each other. If the days are not 24 hour days then nature cannot exist. There is no harmony and no possible way this to take place.

Third, what about man himself. He was created on the sixth day, and then it says that God rested on the seventh. If that is true then there must have been a thousand year night between the creation of Adam, and the time God rested. The command he gave to Adam was after God rested. But the Bible says that Adam lived just over 900 years. There is no record of Adam living through a one thousand year night. That is pure fiction. If one believes the thousand day-age theory, those are some of the illogical consequences that they must come to.

The only logical way to believe in creation is to take it at face value and believe that God created all things in six 24 hour days.

 

True! Neither can you reconcile the dead being raised to life with modern science. Lazarus, the boy on the beir, Christ.

Or water being turned into wine. The blind given sight, the deaf given their hearing, demons excised..the masses at Pentecost understanding Peter's sermon in their own language...need I go on?

None of these things can be explained scientifically, but we accept them by faith. Why is it so hard to accept the Genesis account as the bible states it??

 

The context demands that it be interpreted as a 24 hour day. It can't be interpreted any other way as I have already explained in my previous plain. It was written as a simple narrative for simple people to understand.

Of course it was compiled or written at the same time. They are referred to as the Books of Moses even by Christ. I have no reason to doubt the words of Christ. As for Genesis 2:4, what theological problem do you have?

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, (Genesis 2:4)
--This is a summary of what has already happened in chapter one. Moses is not going to go into all the detail that he just gave his readers in chapter one. Why would he do that? This chapter concentrates on the creation of Adam and Eve and gives much more detail to their creation, leaving out much of the detail of what is presented in the first chapter. This is not a second account of creation. It is the creation of Adam and Eve given in more detail. There is no contradiction here.

YE advocates that I know stick to the text; the Scripture. They take a literal view of Scripture and don't have to allegorize it. OE advocates must allegorize Scripture if they want to put forth their view with any sense. In fact much of the time they have to deny parts of the Bible.

I have given you an explanation. Now you can deal with it.

You are wrong there as well. Both Ephraim and Manasseh were half tribes. The tribe was Joseph, but Jacob gave him a double blessing, and we read of the half tribe of Ephraim and the half tribe of Manasseh. Two halves make one. There were still twelve tribes.

 

Perhaps due to relativistic (proven fact) time issues (Lorentz time dilation equations and the like), a "day" was actually a "literal" 24 hour day and also simultaneously with respect to the "rate of time passage" that we experience today in our existance was billions of years. I understand fully the YE position, and perhaps the "feeling" that science is "attacking" scripture and thus God, in reality, real science (true science) should be by its very nature as unbiased as possible in its search for "truth". Truth is one thing that we as believers should not fear but always be searching for. The YE postion, 6000 year old earth, contradicts science in that multiple (many modalities and methods) of science have large and consistent data to demonstrate an OE position.

I have absolutely no problem for a brother/sister to feel different than I do on the matter, what I do object to strongly is the implication of "unbelief" in YHWH, because of this issue.

Science is NOT my god, YHWH is, and the more science, physics and mathematics that I comprehend, the more I am captivated by the Awesome, creative and Wonderful God I serve and worship.

 

Does Jesus rising from the dead contradict science? How about turning water into wine? A burning bush that is not consumed? The parting of the red sea? Lot's wife turned to a pillar of salt? A rod turning into a serpent? Manna sent from heaven? An ass speaking? Men dying from touching the ark? Elijah carried into heaven? Oil being multiplied? Jonah in the belly of a fish? Blind men cured? Lepers healed? Lazarus? Demons possessing someone and then driven out? An issue of blood cured? Walking on water? The very existence of God?

How many of these others do you toss aside beside they contradict science?

 

Amen! I get tired of Christians trying to make the Bible "fit" science. :applause:

 

Why Matt do you feel the need to be so "sarcastically accusatorial" toward another believer? There has been absolutely NO statements by myself or anyone else in anyway denying "miracles" recorded in scripture. Yet you want to be "accusatorial" toward someone who holds a differnet position than you. You sound almost like you want to be a bully in the sandbox. Have at it Matt, enjoy your time in sandbox.

 

And you sound like someone who's trying to make God "fit" into your idea of what you think "science" has proven. He brought up a legitimate point and instead of responding with an answer, you responded with a personal attack on him.

 

Thanks for avoiding the question. You say you haven't denied any miracles recorded in scripture, yet you clearly deny the miracle of a 6 day creation. You stated that you denied it because it contradicted science. I'm simply wondering what you do with other parts of scripture that contradict science?

Oh, and by the way, you are violating forum rules by even posting in this forum. You are non-denominational, not Baptist and these forums are for Baptists only.

 

By the way, I was worshipping at an SBC church when I signed on, and the church I now worship is still heavily influenced by Baptist principles.

 

But, technically, you're NOT Baptist.

 

Do I need to whip out my double naught, super secret SBC ID card?

 

Do I need to recite the Official Baptist Creed?

 

Baptist are legion. I believe there are some in our modern day who have Baptist in the name of their church who are not Baptist at all.

 

Alcott---yom is not connected to a specific number in Gen 2:4 (the word “the” is not a number)—so it is more than likely a summary term that is similar to Gen 1:1 or simply refers to the time in general that it took God to create. Regardless, if your truly against a literal 6-day creation—there are certain other questions that are much more problematic than this. To be honest—(although Gen 2:4 is not one of them) there are some questions regarding this topic that I just have to say--- “I don’t know.” This is why I’m not utterly opposed to someone disagreeing with my personal conclusion on this subject.

 

No, but I believe you need to be a professing Baptist who is a member of a Baptist church. Just my opinion though. Question.....if you claim to be a Baptist, hold to Baptist doctrine, why do you attend a non- Baptist church?

 

Yes, clearly you should because Baptists are a creedal people...

Here let me help:

Will you assert that you believe in believers' baptism following conversion?
Will you assert that you believe in the priesthood of all believers?
Will you assert that you believe in local church autonomy?
Will you assert that you believe in the authority of the Bible?
Will you assert that you believe in two ordinances?
Will you assert that you believe in eternal security?
Will you assert that you believe in God, the Father Almighty -- Creator of Heaven and Earth?
Will you assert that you believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord?
Will you assert that you believe in the Holy Ghost and the Holy Church?
Quantum Faith do you renounce Satan?
And all his works?
And all his pomps?
Quantum Faith have you been baptized?

...uh got a little confused there at the end...nevertheless...maybe this will help out :saint: