Instigator / Pro
7
1590
rating
91
debates
58.79%
won
Topic
#5992
The Bible does not contradict evolution
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
FishChaser
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
1
1584
rating
29
debates
70.69%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
At face value it appears that the Bible contradicts evolution, but in the beginning of the Bible it only states that God created everything and in what order they were created. It doesn't state how they were created.
It is important to note that this debate puts all BOP on con, because con is arguing for the presence of something, that being statements contained in the Bible that make a biblical worldview incompatible with belief in evolution.
It is only fair that we frame the debate this way, since the atheist position is that there is no God until proven otherwise.
There is no contradiction until proven otherwise.
The Bible uses the word "day" when describing the 6 stages of creation and the final day of rest, which implies that creation only took 6 days and not millions of years in which life evolved. The bible also says however that one day for God is like a thousand years and vice versa, which isn't necessarily meant to be taken literally but is to imply that God doesn't perceive time the same way that we do. So when the Bible uses the word "day" it is unclear if it means a literal 24 hour period.
What I find is that most contradictions in the bible, at least as it pertains to it's own internal consistency, are really just contrived from imperfect translations of certain words and from lazy interpretation. That being said, every time you claim the Bible says something you have to make sure that you are taking into context the differing semantics between English translations and the original Hebrew/greek etc. (especially since most English translations aren't just translations but translations OF translations) and also that your interpretations are taking the message as a whole in context and are not merely a reddit atheist's smear campaign that has already been ripped to shreds by 100 different biblical scholars.
It is important to note that this debate puts all BOP on con, because con is arguing for the presence of something, that being statements contained in the Bible that make a biblical worldview incompatible with belief in evolution.
It is only fair that we frame the debate this way, since the atheist position is that there is no God until proven otherwise.
There is no contradiction until proven otherwise.
The Bible uses the word "day" when describing the 6 stages of creation and the final day of rest, which implies that creation only took 6 days and not millions of years in which life evolved. The bible also says however that one day for God is like a thousand years and vice versa, which isn't necessarily meant to be taken literally but is to imply that God doesn't perceive time the same way that we do. So when the Bible uses the word "day" it is unclear if it means a literal 24 hour period.
What I find is that most contradictions in the bible, at least as it pertains to it's own internal consistency, are really just contrived from imperfect translations of certain words and from lazy interpretation. That being said, every time you claim the Bible says something you have to make sure that you are taking into context the differing semantics between English translations and the original Hebrew/greek etc. (especially since most English translations aren't just translations but translations OF translations) and also that your interpretations are taking the message as a whole in context and are not merely a reddit atheist's smear campaign that has already been ripped to shreds by 100 different biblical scholars.
First of all, thank you Pro for the opportunity for this debate. I don't believe I've debated you yet on this site, so it should be fun.
It is important to note that this debate puts all BOP on con, because con is arguing for the presence of something, that being statements contained in the Bible that make a biblical worldview incompatible with belief in evolution.
I would have liked that to be in the description, but fair enough. I accept the burden of proof for this debate.
There is no contradiction until proven otherwise.
Sure, innocent until proven guilty.
The Bible uses the word "day" when describing the 6 stages of creation and the final day of rest, which implies that creation only took 6 days and not millions of years in which life evolved. The bible also says however that one day for God is like a thousand years and vice versa, which isn't necessarily meant to be taken literally but is to imply that God doesn't perceive time the same way that we do. So when the Bible uses the word "day" it is unclear if it means a literal 24 hour period.
While I agree with your assertion that God must be outside of time, that doesn't mean he can't work within the frameworks of time, (which is his creation), and that's exactly what the Bible strongly implies. Quick side note, you haven't cited where it says that God experiences time differently. Even though I agree with you, I'd like to see that verse just to be sure.
In Genesis 1:5, (I'm using Bible Gateway for translations FYI) the Bible clarifies exactly what it means when it says day, "God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." It's pretty evident from this that by "day", the Bible means one cycle of light and dark, which is the same as we use the terms now. Not only that, each verse stating the days of creation ends with that same phrase I cited below, "And there was evening and there was morning—the ____ day."
So the Bible is very clear about what it means when it says "day", but that doesn't even really matter when it comes to creationism vs. evolution. The Bible is also very clear that God created each animal individually, and did the same with humans. To quote Genesis 1:24 "And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." God created every animal individually which is completely contradictory to what evolution states.
Since you didn't define it in the definition, I'll do a quick refresher now. The Theory of Evolution states that through slight genetic mutations from parent to child, animals gradually changed over time. The ones who were lucky enough to get genetic mutations that helped them survive and reproduce. This is not compatible with the Bible as the Bible clearly says how God created each animal individually, and also goes on to show how God created humans after animals. If humans had truly evolved from a common ancestor of the apes, then God may have indirectly caused them to come into being, but he certainly did not create them immediately as humans as stated in Genesis.
So to conclude, I will list the contradictions I have found to uphold my burden of proof. 1. Evolution must have taken place over millions of years while the Bible clearly states that it took 7 days. 2. Evolution states that animals gradually evolved from each other while Creationism states that they were created individually by God, all on the same day. 3. Evolution states that people evolved gradually from a common ancestor with the apes while Creationism states that they were created all at once, and as only two people as opposed to a group of them.
I yield the floor.
Round 2
The bible describes a day as "evening" followed by "morning". This isn't how we would normally think of day, most people would define it as going from morning to evening. The reason why it is described this way in the bible is because there is a deeper spiritual meaning.
The first thing God creates is light, he separates it from darkness and calls it "good". First there was darkness (evening) and then there was light (morning). Thus each act of creation, which corresponds to a "day", is the "morning" which is being brought out of the "darkness" i.e the lack of creation and divine order.
darkness/night is symbolic of chaos, entropy, evil (which is really just a lack of goodness and lawfulness i.e "light") whereas light is symbolic of goodness, order and creation.
So if God was talking about literal days, he would say "from the evening to the evening" instead of evening to morning, because that would represent an actual 24 hour period. What God is really saying is that the "day" is the creation that is able to unfold because God brought the "morning" out of the "night".
It is important to take this in context with the entire bible, because a recurring theme in the bible is that God brings good things out of evil things i.e "light" things out of "dark" things.
The Bible does not tell you details about the process through which God created each life form. The Bible only tells you that specific kinds of life forms were created and that God created them.
The first thing God creates is light, he separates it from darkness and calls it "good". First there was darkness (evening) and then there was light (morning). Thus each act of creation, which corresponds to a "day", is the "morning" which is being brought out of the "darkness" i.e the lack of creation and divine order.
darkness/night is symbolic of chaos, entropy, evil (which is really just a lack of goodness and lawfulness i.e "light") whereas light is symbolic of goodness, order and creation.
So if God was talking about literal days, he would say "from the evening to the evening" instead of evening to morning, because that would represent an actual 24 hour period. What God is really saying is that the "day" is the creation that is able to unfold because God brought the "morning" out of the "night".
It is important to take this in context with the entire bible, because a recurring theme in the bible is that God brings good things out of evil things i.e "light" things out of "dark" things.
The Bible does not tell you details about the process through which God created each life form. The Bible only tells you that specific kinds of life forms were created and that God created them.
The bible describes a day as "evening" followed by "morning". This isn't how we would normally think of day, most people would define it as going from morning to evening. The reason why it is described this way in the bible is because there is a deeper spiritual meaning.
That last sentence is a bit of a logical jump. Day to night is the same time frame as night to day, the order doesn't really matter. To look at something like this an immediately make the jump to "deeper spiritual meaning" is an willful ignorance of a much simpler explanation. By saying evening first, I think it's pretty clear that the Bible still means the traditional 24 hour cycle that we think of as a "day". The day starts, then comes evening, and then the morning again beginning the next day. This is a far simpler explanation.
darkness/night is symbolic of chaos, entropy, evil (which is really just a lack of goodness and lawfulness i.e "light") whereas light is symbolic of goodness, order and creation.
This seems like you trying to needlessly overcomplicate the relatively simple. Remember Occam's Razor "The simplest explanation is most often the correct one". If the Bible explicitly meant that the evening and morning of the "days" were symbolic, why didn't it say that, or imply it much more heavily? A book that is truly the work of God shouldn't need this much interpretation to glean meaning from. If the Bible says that creation happened in days, then the simplest explanation is that it meant "days". I'm not saying your interpretation isn't impossible, but can you prove it true, or for that matter, show how it's more likely than the common interpretation? Because until you can do that, all you have is another suggestion that you created to go out of your way proving your point.
So if God was talking about literal days, he would say "from the evening to the evening" instead of evening to morning, because that would represent an actual 24 hour period.
He doesn't necessarily need to say that. As stated before, consider that the terms "morning" and "evening" can also be used to represent exact moments as opposed to long stretches of time. What you are saying is that these terms represent phases of the day, which would lend itself to the interpretation that the day starts with the period of evening and ends with the period of morning. But if the day starts at sun-up, then God is creating things after the event of morning. Since that phrase comes at the end of the verses, it's pretty clear that God created things, then there is evening, then there is morning. So following the progression of the day, the event of evening would happen next, then the event of morning.
I'd also like to point out that even if you are right, and "day" represents a 12-hour period, then that just hurts your case. Then God had to create things in an even shorter amount of time than they actually were created.
Finally, I'd like to remind you that you didn't address the second half of my argument. Remember that the time frame doesn't even matter here, because as I stated in my previous argument "The Bible is also very clear that God created each animal individually, and did the same with humans." The notion of God creating animals individually is also completely contradictory to evolution so I would recommend you address that also in your next argument.
Round 3
You keep appealing to simplicity but the bible is not a simple text. Everything in the bible is like a triple entendre with different levels of literal and metaphorical meaning laced with numerology adding even more levels of meaning.
In the original hebrew of the old testament, there are actually 3 languages wrapped into one. Every single word in the old testament has at least 3 different meanings. Not only do hebrew letters correspond to numbers but they also correspond to a whole different set of symbols/letters in the form of pictographs.
For example the first word of the bible in hebrew consists of 3 letters and translates to "in the beginning". This also corresponds to 6 pictographs, which in the most literal way of translating mean "house son power destroy work covenant"
There are two different interpretations of this, the christian one and the jewish one. It's also possible that it can mean both at the same time.
The Jewish interpretation says: the home ( the garden) of Adam (God's "son" i.e creation) will be destroyed by God, so that God can bring about the covenant.
The Christian interpretation says: abiding therein (on earth) the son with the power of God shall be destroyed as a work of the covenant
This is why in order to really win this debate, you will have to take into account that many words lose their original meaning when being translated into english, not only on the superficial level of Hebrew not always translating directly into English, but also in how context changes the meaning of words in Hebrew and how the two extra languages built into Hebrew affect the meaning.
There is a reason that the first "day" corresponds with their being first darkness and then the creation of light. The bible is literally telling you that the day corresponds to the creation rather than the creation corresponding to the day. God is using the words dark and light synonymously with night and day and using those words interchangeably with lack of divine order and the presence thereof. Knowledge of the Hebrew language lends credibility to this interpretation because words like light/dark and night/day are deeply symbolic.
If each "day" is a 24 hour period which corresponds to the rotation of the planet relative to the sun, then why does God only create the sun and moon on the fourth day?
The Bible saying "after their kind" doesn't mean "poofed into existence" but that there are different kinds of animals that can reproduce with each other. Especially since the phrase might take on different semantic characteristics in the original hebrew text.
In the original hebrew of the old testament, there are actually 3 languages wrapped into one. Every single word in the old testament has at least 3 different meanings. Not only do hebrew letters correspond to numbers but they also correspond to a whole different set of symbols/letters in the form of pictographs.
For example the first word of the bible in hebrew consists of 3 letters and translates to "in the beginning". This also corresponds to 6 pictographs, which in the most literal way of translating mean "house son power destroy work covenant"
There are two different interpretations of this, the christian one and the jewish one. It's also possible that it can mean both at the same time.
The Jewish interpretation says: the home ( the garden) of Adam (God's "son" i.e creation) will be destroyed by God, so that God can bring about the covenant.
The Christian interpretation says: abiding therein (on earth) the son with the power of God shall be destroyed as a work of the covenant
This is why in order to really win this debate, you will have to take into account that many words lose their original meaning when being translated into english, not only on the superficial level of Hebrew not always translating directly into English, but also in how context changes the meaning of words in Hebrew and how the two extra languages built into Hebrew affect the meaning.
There is a reason that the first "day" corresponds with their being first darkness and then the creation of light. The bible is literally telling you that the day corresponds to the creation rather than the creation corresponding to the day. God is using the words dark and light synonymously with night and day and using those words interchangeably with lack of divine order and the presence thereof. Knowledge of the Hebrew language lends credibility to this interpretation because words like light/dark and night/day are deeply symbolic.
If each "day" is a 24 hour period which corresponds to the rotation of the planet relative to the sun, then why does God only create the sun and moon on the fourth day?
The Bible saying "after their kind" doesn't mean "poofed into existence" but that there are different kinds of animals that can reproduce with each other. Especially since the phrase might take on different semantic characteristics in the original hebrew text.
You keep appealing to simplicity but the bible is not a simple text. Everything in the bible is like a triple entendre with different levels of literal and metaphorical meaning laced with numerology adding even more levels of meaning.
Sure, but you can't know for certain that there are some metaphorical meanings hidden within the text, and is that even the most likely explanation? If God wanted his work to be perfect, he wouldn't make it so hard to interpret his work. You can counter by saying that he's God, and he can do whatever he wants, but what is the most likely explanation. If God wanted to make a perfect work, would he make it clear and easy to understand, or would he purposely layer hidden meanings that so many people won't be able to find, just for some weird incomprehensible divine reason?
This is why in order to really win this debate, you will have to take into account that many words lose their original meaning when being translated into english, not only on the superficial level of Hebrew not always translating directly into English, but also in how context changes the meaning of words in Hebrew and how the two extra languages built into Hebrew affect the meaning.
Well you should have specified what you meant by "the bible" in the description. If we don't know what text we are even working with, we can't debate. I for one am going to continue using the King James version. If something in that contradicts evolution (which it does), then I have upheld my burden of proof. It's undermining the central tenant of the debate to go and say "well the Bible could actually mean anything because of translations", because "Bible" could mean literally anything. You are basically saying that in order to win the debate, I would have to go and ask God exactly what he meant when he said "the first day". Since you were the one who failed to clarify definitions and sources, this falls on you.
There is a reason that the first "day" corresponds with their being first darkness and then the creation of light. The bible is literally telling you that the day corresponds to the creation rather than the creation corresponding to the day.
In the "literal" interpretation, "day" means one heavenly cycle. In the metaphorical interpretation "day" means a period of creation. If I wrote the sentence "The Ball is Red" which is more likely: That the ball is red or that the ball represents our human psyche and red represents anger, and I am really trying to tell you that humans are often prone to anger and violence?
Conclusion
I believe I have upheld my burden of proof by showing how the far more likely interpretation of the Bible is the literal one, and of course that interpretation contradicts the theory of evolution. I also believe my opponent should lose a conduct point for failing to define their terms, and then springing their trap on me due to their failure to define which Bible we were supposed to be using. In addition, my opponent has failed to even acknowledge the existence of the entire second half of my argument, the part about animal and human creation order.
Thank you to my opponent, and thank you to those voting. I yield the floor.
I should have added in my vote that Pro's argument in R1 included mention that the description of creation in Genesis, which Pro cites, indicates that God created heaven and earth, but did not describe how it was done. This is an adequate description by Pro that evolution, itself, may have played a part in the creative process.
I would add the possibility that creation continues to this day by that means, and I see no contradiction biblically to refute the possibility, but do not make that last comment a feature of my vote because it is conjecture, and Pro did not specifically make that argument.
Care to vote? I would like to note that in the last round con accuses me of springing a "trap" and failing to specify that he has to take into account the actual original meaning of the bible and not just a flawed english translation. He says I should lose a conduct point for this, even though I said in the very first round that you have to take into account the flaws in translations and make sure you are putting it into context with the original Hebrew in mind in order to understand the real meaning of the Bible.