Evangelist hs-ers embracing evolution science materials (Atlantic article)

[Lily_Grace]

It's not that God tricked us -- He created a universe that is mature, so it appears older than it is. The trees in the Garden of Eden were bearing fruit, and Adam and Eve were adults. It was a universe that was ready for life.

 

 

By the time Cain was tossed out, there were already cities and a population for him to be afraid of. It was a mature universe.

 

 

I always interpreted Genesis (Adam and Eve) as the beginning of Judaism. That the garden was largely symbolic, a place for God's chosen people, the ones he handpicked. The fall was akin to the flood, not meeting God's expectations but getting a second chance. Only outside of Eden was the rest of the world, people and cities and those not touched by Him.

[texasmama]

I cannot get past "evangelist" in the title of the post. hehehe

[8circles]

I cannot get past "evangelist" in the title of the post. hehehe

 

Haha! Me too. I assume it's supposed to be the nebulous "E/evangelical".

[KungFuPanda]

Don't YE Christians also believe that Noah lived about a thousand years? I vaguely recall something from my childhood about supernaturally long lifespans, but I'm not sure how that plays out with modern fundamentalists.

[LibraryLover]

What a great article. Passing this along.

[Freckles]

Don't YE Christians also believe that Noah lived about a thousand years? I vaguely recall something from my childhood about supernaturally long lifespans, but I'm not sure how that plays out with modern fundamentalists.

 

 

NM

[sbgrace]

I hold to neither YE or evolutionary theory concerning man, but I there is something I don't understand, I could probably google it, but I'll just ask here :). If you are an evangelical Christian, who believes God sent his Son to die for our sin, how do you pinpoint the point at which man became man, the man that God loved and chose to play out the plan of redemption? This is obviously not an important point for non-Christians, but for Christians it is kind of critical. The beginnings of the universe are not that important to me, God could have created it in six literal days, six literal seconds, 600,000,000 years, through natural selection, through his spoken word, or with his hand. Those things aren't are critical to me as God created Adam to be a companion and for his glory, Adam sinned and broke the covenant with God, thereby introducing the need for a savior. So how is that reconciled through the evolution of man? At what point do you think man became "Adam" if you hold to an evolutionary theory of HUMAN origins? I'm honestly curious, I just can't figure it out.

 

 

It looks as if the Biologos organization mentioned in the article has quite a number of authors writing on that topic on their website. http://biologos.org/search?s=adam Some of those articles are interesting. It doesn't look like Biologos themselves take a specific position on Adam but there are some big names (NT Wright, Peter Enns, etc.) writing on that subject.

[Chris in VA]

I love NT Wright. Thanks for the head's up, sbgrace.

[mommaduck]

Someone said that they can't imagine how embarrassing it would be to reveal a YE belief in a freshman bio 101 class. Let me tell you that I've taken that Vlad and it has never come up. In high school, my bio teacher was YE and avoided the subject. My son's bio teacher was also YE, but taught both. I have never hidden either theory. I don't find anything embarrassing about it. I also don't find anything evil in believing otherwise. I find much misunderstanding by both sides. I do believe one side to be wrong to a certain extent. Both sides are also varied in theories that support them.