Evolution and The Bible are incompatible

I will make an opening argument then respond to Inquire's argument. -Opening Argument-As I have stated, the Bible is incompatible with macro-Evolution. This is not simply because the Bible doesn't explicitly teach Evolution, this is because the Bible explicitly teaches against Evolution. While many modern theologians are seeming to accept an old-age model of the Earth, and macro-Evolution itself, this is a recent phenomenon. Before Darwin entered the scene and posited his book On the Origin of Species, Christian theologians and the developers of modern science were creationists, in that they believed in the supernatural origin of the universe and of life. [1] This goes to show that by accepting Evolution now Christians are not allowing the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture for them, but science. I wholly believe that religion, specifically Christianity, and science are compatible. But this is a major issue that they clash on. The Scriptures tell us that God uses "the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and uses the weak things of this world to put to shame the things which are mighty" (1 Cor. 1:27). It is true that the Scriptures are rife with allegory. However, the Scriptures are also rife with history. In fact, the book of Genesis is a history book. Why should we take the first two chapters of Genesis as allegory and the rest as history, especially when the first two chapters read as history just like the rest of the book? When the Bible speaks of creation of the universe and the creation of man, it is told as if it happened that way, not as if in prose. Contention One: The language usedGenesis 1 tells us that the universe was created in six days. If the days were anything other than literal, then you must show why. The Hebrew word used for "day" in Genesis one is yom, which can certainly have a range of meanings. However, outside the book of Genesis, the word yom, coupled with a number (e. g. "first day"), 359 times and is always a literal day (as defined by evening and morning). There are also other words in Hebrew which are suitable for long periods of time (e. g. olam or qedem), but none of these words are used. [2] If Genesis 1 would be the exception, then you must show why we should take them as anything other than literal days. Contention Two: Adam and EveThe Bible is quite specific that Adam was created in God's image, of the dust of the earth (Gen. 1:26, Gen. 2:7), and Eve from Adam's rib (Gen. 2:21). If these are supposed to be allegorical, you must show how the allegory fits. God says that they were created that way, they were not evolved. Why shouldn't we accept the account as written, unless you are taking into account outside sources which is not a proper method of Biblical exegesis. Also, why not simply tell us that humanity evolved, rather than trying to hide it by telling us we were created that way instead? Contention Three: The Jewish WorkweekWhen God established the Ten Commandments, He commanded the Jews to keep the Sabbath day holy (Ex. 20: 8-11). As God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh, so the Jews were to work for six days and rest on the seventh day. This commandment wouldn't make any sense unless the days were literal. Suppose the Creation days were 1,000 years. God would have been telling them to work for 6,000 years, then rest for 1,000 years. This doesn't make any sense, considering the oldest person whom ever lived was Methuselah, and he lived to be 969. So considering these points, and considering that there seems to be great evidence for an old earth and evolution, I submit that while God created the universe from 6,000 to 10,000 years ago (a young earth), that God created the universe with the appearance of age. We see that God created Adam and Eve as fully-functioning adult male and female, though only being a few seconds old, and Jesus changed water into aged wine. As such, since the universe is an interconnected whole, God created the universe with the appearance of old age so that everything can be working for us when He created us on day six. This also explains why we can see light from distant stars. -Rebuttal-Now to respond to Inquire's arguments. (1) Evolution and the Bible are possibly compatibleIt is not enough to say your burden has been satisfied by showing it's possible. As I have shown, the Bible clearly teaches against Evolution and old age. If you are going to say that Evolution and an old earth are possible and compatible with the Bible, then you must show how the Bible was using allegory to touch on these subjects. Whenever Jesus spoke in parable, we received an explanation to these parables. Yet there seems to be no explanation to the language used in Genesis 1 about creation. Since Genesis 1 and 2 specifically speak against Evolution, you would bear the burden to show how they are even possibly compatible. It is true that the Bible is not always literal; however, it is not always allegorical. As I have shown, Genesis is a book of history. If you are going to read Evolution into it, you must show why we should take the first two chapters of Genesis as allegorical and the rest of it literal. Surely, there is good reason to do so. (2) Evolution and the Bible are probably compatibleIt should be pointed out that while there are scientific statements in the Bible, the Bible is not a science book and it was never meant to be. It is a theological and historical book. As God was speaking to people with a very limited understanding of the Earth, He did not speak to them in realistic, scientific terms because they likely would not have understood. God had to speak to them in terms they understood because the main purpose of the Scriptures was to teach how they might be saved. There is no reason to suppose the people could not have understood an evolutionary explanation for creation. If they can accept that a God they can't see created the universe in six days, I certainly think they could have accepted that the God they can't see evolved them from lower forms of life. It is true that different cultures share a creation story, an account of a flood, etc. But these simply lends credibility to these events. After all, these aren't just stories recorded in the Bible, but these were actual events that inspired authors from different cultures to write about them. They all had their own theology behind it, but surely one can be correct. I will try to touch more on this in the following round. Simply saying that a literal interpretation robs Genesis of "beauty" is no argument at all. If it really happened, it really happened. It didn't "not happen" because we want Genesis to be a more beautiful rendering. (3) Evolution is supported by the BibleI agree that God does not lie. In fact, the Scriptures say "let God be true, and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4). If all of humanity believed a false concept because it appeared true, it is still false. We agree on your (p1). However, we disagree on which of your other premises is false. God hates sin. Therefore, it is likely true that God will abandon us all, let us die in our sins, and allow us to go to Hell. However, the Scriptures tell us that this will not happen because of God's love and compassion for us. Evolution may seem "likely," but the Scriptures do not support it. As my characters are running low, I will touch more on your second and third contentions, as well as your next round arguments in my following rebuttal. [1] Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Geisler, Norman L. , Baker Book House Company, p. 168[2] . http://www.answersingenesis.org...;