Regarding evolution

[Bibbit]

May I add a twist to the discussion of evolution I’ve seen elsewhere in these forums? It appears to me that most of the posters in these threads say they are believers, that is they are Christian. They hold the Bible to be God’s word. That being the case, please try to stick with me as I work up to a question I’ve never gotten an answer to, though ask it often I have.

Many if not most who read This Rock or peruse these forums understand the typology involved with Genesis and the Gospels. By that I mean in Genesis 2 and 3 we see things regarding Adam and Eve that are lived out again, or fulfilled, in the Gospels. Many times we see where the events that occurred in Genesis involving Adam and Eve are fulfilled and at times literally reversed by Jesus and Mary, particularly for Catholics. In Genesis Adam comes first, then Eve, with Adam calling Eve “woman”. In the Gospels Mary comes first, then Jesus, with Jesus calling Mary “woman”. Adam and Eve sin, Jesus and Mary, do not sin. Adam falls in the garden, Jesus tells us to rise while in the garden. Adam and Eve fall by eating a forbidden food, Jesus becomes the Food that we must eat to have eternal life. The forbidden food in the garden comes from a tree, the new Food, Jesus, is hung on a tree. Adam and Eve fall in the garden, Jesus begins His suffering and redemption in a garden. The list goes on and on.

Now, before I go further, I must make a point or two. It is my understanding that Christians who believe in evolution do as a rule believe that at some point God endowed a male and a female animal with an eternal soul, thus making them the first two humans. These first two humans, Adam and Eve, were not born of humans, the creatures from which they came were animals, not human, they did not have eternal souls. At least this is how it is explained to me. If I am wrong please let me know. Now, back to my point.

Something else regarding Genesis and the Gospels has always interested me. Adam is put to sleep and his side split, with God the Father taking from him a rib with which He produces Eve. On the cross, after He falls asleep (dies), Jesus has His side split, and He gives birth to The Church. Why would Jesus’ go so far out of His way to fulfill not just the events I mentioned earlier but this specific event in Genesis if it never occurred? If Adam and Eve were not created according to the accounts in Genesis, why would Jesus have His side literally split like that of Adam? I ask this because as I said above, if evolution is true, then Adam was not created in the way Genesis states, and Eve would not have been created from Adam’s side. They would have been born of creatures. I can’t understand why Jesus would have saved us the way He did if those accounts in Genesis were just literary stories meant to make a spiritual point. Can anybody tell me why he believes Jesus went so far out of His way to fulfill Genesis 2 and 3 if they aren’t true?

 

[Marquette]

I believe the creation account to be true so I’m not here to give an evolutionist’s response. I do want to thank you for all you wrote! I was raised protestant and thought I had heard of all the “types,” fulfillments, etc., but you brought out SO many more. That was wonderful. I’m printing it out and keeping it in my Bible!!

Marquette

 

[Lazerlike42]

Marquette:

I believe the creation account to be true so I’m not here to give an evolutionist’s response. I do want to thank you for all you wrote! I was raised protestant and thought I had heard of all the “types,” fulfillments, etc., but you brought out SO many more. That was wonderful. I’m printing it out and keeping it in my Bible!!

Marquette

Let’s clear something up… evolutionist Catholics believe the creation accounts are true, too. They simply don’t believe them to be literal history.

I also lean in favor of the literal interpretation, but until the Church declares otherwise, each view is acceptable. It should not be a matter that divides the faithful, so I refuse to debate about it, but I did want to clear this point up. Literal creationists need to be just as respectful in representing the views of evolutionists as vice versa.



p.s., I don’t think you were being disrespectful; I just wanted to make sure to clarify the point because the way you worded it could be confused to mean that you think evolutionists don’t believe in God’s creation

 

[DeFide]

Bibbit:

Can anybody tell me why he believes Jesus went so far out of His way to fulfill Genesis 2 and 3 if they aren’t true?

As a Catholic, you’re free to speculate on such issues.

I don’t have strong feelings about the different explanations, but remember that for God, all possible things are equally easy since he does not have limited resources. God never has to “go far out of His way”.

For the God who created the vast, complementary intricacies of the universe out of nothing, fulfilling the Sacred Scriptures in beautiful ways is no biggie.

 

[Ted_CharlotteNC]

I like the points made to date and would like to add mine:

I am not going to limit my God by time,
since he is the Creator of time also.

Time is nothing more that a measrement between points.
Just because a creature (us) cannot understand
the Creator (God)
doesnt mean the system the Creator created exists.

So if someone wants to limit creation by our puny understanding of time, then thats an unacceptable limit on God. Old earth, young earth, doesnt matter. God made it out of nothing at some point.

If God made it to look 6,000,000,000 years old,
or whether sin caused it,
or we can’t understand the Hebrew parrallism in the poetic writings describing this to an ancient people,
we are losing the point.

The point of the Bible is
God made us
God loves us
We screw up
God loves us
We screw up
God loves us
We screw up
God loves us
We screw up
God loves us

The Bible is not God’s blueprint for the engineering of the Earth
The Bible is God’s blueprint for our lives.

 

[Bibbit]

Lazerlike42:

Let’s clear something up… evolutionist Catholics believe the creation accounts are true, too. They simply don’t believe them to be literal history.

I also lean in favor of the literal interpretation, but until the Church declares otherwise, each view is acceptable. It should not be a matter that divides the faithful, so I refuse to debate about it, but I did want to clear this point up. Literal creationists need to be just as respectful in representing the views of evolutionists as vice versa.



p.s., I don’t think you were being disrespectful; I just wanted to make sure to clarify the point because the way you worded it could be confused to mean that you think evolutionists don’t believe in God’s creation

Thanks! I should I have made it clear that I respect those who think differently than I do because I realize I have no more claim to the truth or facts than they do. Still, I sincerley would like somebody who is a Christian but doesn’t take Genesis 2 & 3 literally to tell me how they square what I said with what they believe. For intellectual purposes if nothing else.

 

[Pjs2ejs]

It is the church’s teaching that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. She also teaches that there was an Adam and Eve. She does not deny any of Genesis as just myth or a story. What the church wants us to focus on is Christ’s message. If the world was made in one “earth” day or one “God” day, this does not change anything.

The fact is that Adam and Eve sinned, and the Church believes this. After that the Salvation story is history.

If a Catholic ever tells you that the Catholic Church allows them to believe that Genesis was a myth, they are wrong. Now the extent of Genesis that we believe literally, from a human standpoint, varies.

The Catholic Church does not have enough scientific information to make a dogmatic statement that evolution did not exist or Creation happened in 6 earth days. Just like in the 1500s it did not have enough scientific information about whether the Earth was the center of the universe. So, until then, the Church will always claim scripture is inerrant yet will never make a statement that they do not know to be 100% true. So, the Church continues to teach that the Bible is inerrant AND Creation may have happened in a way that we can’t understand or don’t know about.

Hope this wasn’t too confusing.

 

[rwoehmke]

Jesus was an Old Testament Jew. Knowing the “Story” so to speak wouldn’t he do his best to follow the typology and prophesy in the Scriptures. He went out of his way many times in the New Testament account to say he was the Son of Man, that God was his Father, that he and the Father were one and on and on. With this burning desire to prove his creds to his own people why not? As far as the historicity, the archilogical evidence doesn’t support many of the events of the Old Testament before about 750 BC. As they say the history is “theological history” not what we ordinarily think of as history. It is amazing that the redacters were able to write the story between 800 and 400 BC and get the prophetic aspect so right.

 

[patg]

Pjs2ejs:

…AND Creation may have happened in a way that we can’t understand or don’t know about.

That’s pretty much the standard definition of a myth - a story attempting to describe what is beyond the author’s understanding.

 

[Bibbit]

Believe me when I say that I’m not looking for an argument, but the last few posts don’t cut it for me. I need something more. I’m thinking out loud here, but maybe I’m finally working towards my own answer.

The Old foreshadows the New, and the New fulfills the Old. Fulfilling a prophecy is one thing, fulfilling a type is another. Jesus was born of a virgin, fulfilling a prophecy. The prophet was in some way informed by God that this is how Jesus would be born. But a type is not specifically a prophecy. Adam did not fall asleep and have his rib removed (thus taking part in Eve’s creation) and then wake up saying, “This is how the Savior is to birth the Church.” At the time Adam didn’t even know a savior would be necessary. Also, should the focus should be on the Old foreshadowing the New? I wonder, the Old points to the New, but was the New going to occur even if the Old didn’t point to it? Does the New fulfill the Old because it has to fulfill it? Or was the New going to happen anyway? Were there 12 apostles to fulfill the 12 tribes, or were there 12 tribes to foreshadow the 12 apostles? The Virgin Birth did not occur to fulfill the prophecy. The prophecy was given because the Virgin Birth was going to occur, irregardless of the prophecy. Are types like this to?

Having said (and asked) all the above, we do see other types that Jesus fulfills; we see Melkizedek, Joseph, Moses, David, Elijah, and so on. I don’t think anybody disputes that these people existed. Yet many will say there was “an” Adam, but not really “the” Adam of Genesis. But I can’t think of any other people who were types that weren’t real, nor events. So why, if all the other types were real, have a phony Adam? Did God simply inspire the writer of Genesis to put in this story so we’d have yet more types fulfilled?

It’s well past my bedtime, I hope I don’t wake up in the morning and regret posting this… :yawn: