Big Bang/Evolution and death

[Hodos]

He does not, when he says “through Him all things were made” add any kind of timeframe. You are torturing the passage. The idea that because John refers to this passage, he must interpret it literally in every sense, including the idea of God creating the universe in units of days (revolutions of the earth) before he has invented the Earth is not logic.

No, the idea the John and Pau and Jesus accept the creation narrative as a true account and normative for their theology however, is the point. And as we have seen in Romans, Paul (as first century Judaism taught) accepts that death was introduced as the result of the sin of Adam. Again, this implies that when the creation account says In the beginning God created…and spoke things into existence on a given day, and there was morning and there was evening and there was morning the first (second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth) day, they accepted that as normative for their understanding of creation. Again, you are going to need to find something that demonstrates that the word yom in the Genesis account means something other than a day (dismissing the fact that it is couched by saying there was evening and there was morning yom echad).

With respect to the fact that John is talking about the origins of Jesus being a man, that is completely false. John’s prologue starts as follows: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Through him all things were made, and without him was made not one thing that has been made.

The first three verses of John are referring back to the Genesis 1:1 creation account, where the Hebrew writer introduces God with the creation. All of this presupposes a God that exists before creation; however, his starting point, the beginning of the narrative account, is creation. Verse three demonstrates that that is John’s intention. It isn’t until verse 14 when John addresses the incarnation. And when Jesus says it was not so in the beginning in Matthew, he is again, going back to the creation narrative, using the same verbiage and referring back to the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2.

However, if you take your line of argument, when Jesus is referring to the beginning he is referring to something that occurred eons after the creation, or John in his narrative (essentially using the Arian explanation of John 1), or Paul is crossing his fingers when he talks about death entering the world through one man. You can’t have it both ways, the text doesn’t allow for that.

 

[anthonymarie]

OK, you haven’t read what I said and, frankly, you’re just rambling.

I know John is referring back to the Genesis account, we all do, you haven’t found anything new there. What’s new is your novel reading into it that John interpreted the timeframe and discription given in Genesis literally for which you have provided no church father, doctor of the church, or reknown theologian to back you up.

This is slightly of topic but, since we’re talking about the link between John 1 and Genesis, watch this video people:

I never get bored of it.

 

[Hodos]

No one is rambling, I think you are just missing the point repeatedly. And my take on what John meant by in the Beginning is nothing novel. I would refer you to such scholars as Lightfoot, who is also reflecting the early Church father’s discussions of this passage (Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius actually discuss just what I stated in their refutations of Arius who took the view of chronology of John’s Prologue that you do).

 

[WileyC1949]

His problem with the Big Bang is that it means death was in the world before the first humans, not as Romans 5:12 states, paraphrasing death spread to all men, because all have sinned.

I don’t see how that relates to the Big Bang, but death was certainly in the world before the first humans. However while the pre-humans were still in an animistic state death was not something they considered. Animals live by what ever the status quo is at any given moment. They do not ponder what will come next week. So death is never on their mind. Even when they are dying I do not think they consider the end of life. They are just living with whatever it is that they may be enduring, not thinking that something could be better.

I believe that man became fully human when somewhere along the evolutionary line God endowed man with a human soul, and with it a conscience. In the Biblical story it is when A & E supposedly ate from “The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”. I firmly believe that it is the conscience which created in man the endless search for something better than the cards he was dealt. He wanted a greater good than living on the plains and so began to live in caves. He wanted a greater evil than killing with a rock and so came up with the idea of a spear. The “punishments” for A&E’s sin in the story were most likely were in fact an awareness that something could be better than pain, suffering, toil and death. What man became aware of was death was to be avoided and that death was final.

It was Jesus’ death and resurrection that proved to man that death was not the end. And so they can sing
"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”

 

[WileyC1949]

Sin brought Human death into the world, it has nothing to do with the animals.

The Bible is about Human salvation, it doesn’t really say much about the nature of animal life.

I would disagree. It seems to me that it was when we were made truly human that we became aware of the finality of death. And I thing animals are certainly a part of this. Does a tiger when he kills consider that he just ended another creatures life? Or does he just think “I have food!” I think pre-humans while still in the animistic state were the same way. It was only when they received a human soul and a human conscience that they considered the loss endured when some one dies. It wasn’t so much that death entered the world because of sin as it was an awareness of death entered because of it.

 

[WileyC1949]

First, when you read the gospels, it is pretty clear that Jesus believed in a literal reading of Genesis, and in particular the creation account (refer to Matthew 19 for example where Jesus refers to creation and the purpose for marriage).

I think you chose entirely the wrong passage to try to say that Jesus believed in a literal interpretation. The whole passage is about Jesus saying that what was written was incorrect. but because of the lack of knowledge and understanding of the people then it was allowed. Jesus was saying that what was written was NOT to be taken literally!

Even an old earth intelligent design theory, which attempts to bridge the gap between the “Big Bang”, Evolution, and the Biblical creation narrative doesn’t account for the fact that the Bible explicitly states that death entered through sin.

Sure it does. What came into the world as a result of having a conscience (eating from the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”) was something that an animal could not realize… an awareness of the finality of death. (See my other posts where I explained this more)

A dude with an alphabet soup title after his name, or Christ? If push comes to shove, I’ve gotta err on the side of Christ.

Let me see… the passage that you cited, His dismissal of those who wanted to stone the woman who had committed adultery, His saying “You have heard it said ‘An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth’, but I say to you do good to those that persecute you.”, His defense of the apostles working on the Sabbath, His dismissal of the eating restrictions in the OT in Peter’s vision. If you are going to “err on the side of Christ” maybe you should not insist of a literal interpretation.

 

[edwest211]

Interesting story but it’s only speculation.

 

[edwest211]

This is not Scriptural.

 

[edwest211]

Are you aware of the correct way to interpret the Bible?

 

[WileyC1949]

This is not Scriptural.

How many times in the Church’s history has the Church disputed science because of what was written in the Bible, but then when it became clear that science was correct then recanted? The Bible is NOT a history book. It is NOT a science book. It is NOT a sociology book. It speaks with the knowledge of science of the day. In as far as history many of the books were never meant to be considered history (Genesis among them). Those that could be viewed as historical were written in the style of the day which was completely different than our own. Details were skewed so that the purpose would show better. In as far as society, it speaks about the society that existed then. It was not making edicts as to how society should be for all time.

Are you aware of the correct way to interpret the Bible?

Are you??

 

[ProdglArchitect]

This doesn’t really contradict my post. I also don’t agree. We were created to be undying, but then sin entered into the world and brought about our death. Animals have nothing to do with it, nor do pre-soul human animals.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

edwest211:

This is not Scriptural.

How many times in the Church’s history has the Church disputed science because of what was written in the Bible, but then when it became clear that science was correct then recanted?

None… at all. Zero…

The Church doesn’t make proclamations about science.

If you’re about to reference Galileo, I’d ask you to actually do your research. Galileo was denounced for claiming his theory as fact without evidence, and in direct contradiction to the other minds of his time. Even though he was ultimately right, his methodology was all wrong, no different from any scientist today who puts forward theories without any supporting evidence.

 

[edwest211]

The Bible applies today just as it did in the past. The Church selected which books would become canon. Another point: God could have easily written “In ages long past, men looked like animals and thought like animals and lived like animals, but as those great ages passed, men changed and became the men you are today.” But He didn’t.

The Catechism provides the necessary instruction for biblical interpretation.

 

[edwest211]

Of course the Church makes proclamations about science and evolution. When it says something favorable, it is praised and when it says something unfavorable, it is denounced.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

It does not make declarative statements on scientific subjects. Individual members have, even the Pope (as with Francis’ statements about global warming); but the authoritative teaching of the Church does not say anything about the science of any given subject.

What it does speak on is the moral / theological implications of certain scientific subjects. Take evolution. The Church says nothing about whether evolution is true or not, only that it cannot be believed that evolution happens in the absences of God. That is a theological proclamation, and says nothing on the actual science. Other subjects are given the same treatment.

 

[edwest211]

That is not true.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Then give me an example.

 

[edwest211]

Opinion | Finding Design in Nature - The New York Times