Evolution and The Bible are incompatible

When I talk about outside sources, I refer to "contemporary wisdom." As I have already shown from the Scriptures, if everyone believed a falsehood but God said something else was true, God would be the one who was true. He also uses the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.Looking at the historical and cultural context is important when attempting to properly interpret the Scriptures. We, of course, must consider who God was speaking to. However, I don't believe it's enough here to say that God didn't tell them how the world was actually created simply because He was talking to people less educated than we are now.For instance, the Jews certainly understood the passage of time, and how big a number a billion is. Would it not have made more sense for God to tell the Jews the earth was billions of years old, rather than simply indicating that He created everything in six days? Wouldn't that have saved a lot of confusion? The Bible is indeed filled with poetry, but that doesn't mean we have license to take everything we disagree with as poetry.You can write rhythmically and poetically about a true event that happened. Simply using poetic language doesn't mean the text is drastically different than what the poetry is indicating.The number seven is also an important number in the Scriptures. But does everything that comes with the number seven figurative? Were there seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19), or were they figurative of something else? Joshua was ordered to march around Jericho seven times (Joshua 6). Did he have to literally walk around it seven times, or was the number figurative of something else? Bearing the number seven does not mean it should be taken figurative. The number seven would be just as important if God created the universe in seven literal days, as it would if He created the universe in seven figurative ones.The difference between the Bible and a book of fiction is that the book of fiction is obviously not to be taken as literal. That's why we have a "fiction" section at bookstores. However, the Bible is meant to be taken literal unless there is good reason not to (e.g. Jesus' parables). I don't know any good reason why God would not have just indicated the Earth was really, really old if it actually is.Contention One: The Language UsedThe Contender misunderstands my position here, and perhaps I could have been clearer. The thing is, the same God who inspired the book of Genesis inspired the book of Revelation (2 Timothy 3:16). Besides the historical and cultural context, a more important method used for Biblical exegesis is to compare Scripture with Scripture. We can see that the "light" in the early days of Genesis is God's glory because we see that God uses that same light in the new Heaven of Revelation 21. It is not a stretch to see that they are both the same light.When the text uses the phrase "there was evening and there was morning," since there was no sun or moon yet to denote the passage of time, those phrases are used to indicate that a day, as we understand it, was still passing. God could have created the universe in one day if He so chose, but He chose to take seven to establish the Jews' workweek, and because seven is a number of significance.If God created the light, He could certainly turn it off to keep the flow from day to night if He wanted to. On day four, the passage says that He created the sun and moon to rule the day and night, respectively. Day and night were occurring up until that point, but He didn't create the sun and moon until day four to rule over them. In Genesis 1:4, it was God dividing the light and darkness, and in Genesis 1:18, it was the sun.I fail to understand how the Contender can believe in a God who created the universe, but who can't create it in only six days or who can make snakes talk.Contention Two: Adam and EveIf we're going to believe in a God who can create the entire universe, then it's no stretch to take the miracles of the Old Testament literal. Again, what do these allegedly poetic illustrations mean regarding how we came about? Why would God say Adam was created from the dust of the Earth, and Eve from Adam's rib? How does that fit into an evolutionary process? It's easy to make the Bible say whatever you want it to. But if you're going to try and indicate that the passage was figurative and not literal, there must be explanations for why a certain part says what it does.Contention Three: The Jewish WorkweekWhich of Jesus' parables did He in no way explain? And as I said, they were all recorded in Scripture. Even if He didn't explain them to everyone right away, they were written down and recorded into Scripture so that we would understand. He wasn't being intentionally deceitful to anyone. And I believe that my view is more consistent on whether or not God was being deceitful. The Scriptures are God's Word. Modern science is not. If science seems to indicate the universe is greatly old, but the Scriptures say that it is not (which is God's Word), the Scriptures should be trusted. However, if the Scriptures (which are God's Word) tells us the universe is young when it's really old, that would be directly deceitful from God Himself.It is not my case that Genesis 1 merely seems literal. Judging by the text alone, one cannot get an old universe from it. Only when taking into consideration outside forces can one read into the texts what is simply not there. The universe seems old to our instruments and senses, so we should trust that over the Holy Spirit's guiding (which, ironically, we can't see or feel God and yet the contender has still come to faith in Him just the same).(1) Evolution and the Bible are possibly compatibleI understand what the Contender is trying to argue here, but it is still my contention that if the Bible says something happened a certain way, there is no possibility for it happening another way, or God would be lying to us. If Genesis 1 should be taken literal, there is no compatibility with a figurative rendering.(2) Evolution and the Bible are probably compatibleI really don't have enough characters to go into all the reasons, but the short answer would be He needed to create it with the appearance of age because all the parts had to work right from the get-go. I'll give you an example. This is a huge universe. Scientists contend the universe began with a big bang and now the universe is expanding. However, in order for the planets, stars, and all cosmic stuff to be properly aligned, He didn't just place them all right next to each other and then they started expanding. He placed them far apart from each other. While that process may have taken a long time, God started it out right from the start.(3) Evolution is supported by the BibleOne does not need to look at outside sources to know that Jesus turned water into aged wine. In fact, according to the text (John 2), the waiter was praised for bringing the best wine last. We know from the text that Jesus turned water into aged wine, the best that there could be.As I have already illustrated, the reason the universe appears old is because God set everything in place. Whereas scientists can "know" how old our universe is by observing distant stars, if the universe is only about 6,000 or 10,000 years old, then we are seeing light from distant stars that we logically shouldn't be seeing yet. And yet we do see them. This is because of the appearance of age. God created the stars to light up our night sky, with their light already in transit when He first created them. This would give them an appearance of age, even though it is still a young universe. It is not deceitful, it is how things had to have been done.