Theistic Evolution is not biblical
Debate Rounds (3)
Round 1 is for acceptance only please.
Reason 1: the context of the word yom in Genesis 1 it has a morning and evening
God said in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." The Hebrew word for "make" in this verse, and in verse 25 where God makes the beasts, is "asah." It means to do, work, make, produce. This is not simply the limited Hebrew understanding of evolutionary principles.
Reason 3 1) If a day is an era, why are an evening and a morning even mentioned? Actual days must be intended, otherwise, men who lived hundreds of years, e.g., Seth and Noah, would really have lived millions of years. If a day is an era, then a year must be tremendously long, perhaps encompassing hundreds of millions of years;
Reason 4 Genesis 1:16 ("And God made two great lights: The greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night") states the sun rules the day and the moon rules the night. This obviously is referring to time as we know it, time with days that are 24 hours long with daylight ruling half of each.
reason 5 Genesis 1:5 surely spoke of literal day and literal night, and the inference from the statement, "And the evening and the morning were the first day," is that it was a literal day of evening and morning, 24-hours. There is no Biblical evidence that the days of this chapter were longer periods.
If a day is an era, then much of the Old Testament becomes chaotic. For example, in each of the following verses the same Hebrew word "yom" is employed: "And the flood was forty days upon the earth" (Genesis 7: 1 7), "And he [Moses] was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights" (Exodus 34:28), and "Thus I fell down before the Lord forty days and forty nights..." (Deuteronomy 9:25). If "yom" means era instead of a 24-hour period, Moses was "there with the Lord" for a long time.
7: Jesus spoke of Noah's flood "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. "
Matthew 24:37, Luke 17:27
8 There is no evidence of a longer period. Anywhere in the bible
The Instigator has either unknowingly or purposely omitted alternative understandings of the text in favor of a literalistic reading. One alternative. Some scholars have concluded that the Genesis Myth was created in order to demonstrate that the Hebrew God is superior to other Mesoamerican deities. The Ancient Jews needed a story to demonstrate why God deserves worship and so they advanced a story showing how God created the universe instead of subduing it, in contrast to other Mesoamerican deities.
Another possibility is that the story is meant to be allegorical. In contradiction to criticism that metaphorical and allegorical interpretations became popular in direct response to the rise of science, Christians, since the 3rd century, have found allegorical interpretations of the story. Furthermore, the Apostle Paul himself thought some Genesis stories to have been allegorical, as demonstrated by Galatians 4:21-31.
The Instigator's claim is that theistic evolution is not Biblical. However, his assertion rests upon the assumption that literalism is the only way to read the text. This is demonstrably false, as shown. Theistic evolution is Biblical as it is nothing more than an alternative interpretation of the Bible, one which harmonizes spirituality and naturalism.
Con claims that the bible should be read in the historical-critical method, and this is valid in some cases depending on its context, authorship ect. The bible has many literary devices they include history, poetry, parables, and the such. Genisis is clearly written in the historical form.
My opponent also claims that Genisis should be taken allegory, however this is not the case either because:
Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory, the need for a Savior is an allegory, and Adam is an allegory"but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine"it destroys the foundation of the gospel. - ken Ham
Again I thank you for joining me in my first debate.
And just to respond to the last point, it is false to say that an allegorical interpretation would destroy the foundations of Christianity. If the founders of Christianity were themselves open to an allegorical interpretation, how could an allegorical interpretation be destructive? (It seems that the Instigator has confused "allegorical" with "metaphorical" and assumes a vulgar meaning of "myth.") The Biblical references to the Genesis story are already allegorical. Whenever the New Testament writers reference the story, they assign theological significance to the events and attempt to find a higher meaning. Allegory cannot be detrimental if it's asserted by the writers themselves.
Everyone should vote and leave comments!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by medv4380 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro needed to properly establish what Theistic Evolution is in order to make his point. The argument being used is so broad that it could be mistaken for an argument against Day Age Creationism. Pro conceded that the historical-critical method was valid, but failed to present any convening reason it wouldn't be valid for Genesis. Sources go to Pro because Con cited Wikipedia. If Wikipedia was a reliable source you should be citing the citations it is citing, and not it. Spelling goes to Con because Pro's argument is cluttered with missing punctuation, and incorrect caps.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.