Theistic Evolution doesnt work with the bible.

Refutations to Con's Round 3 Argument, answers to questions in his Round 4, and Final Conclusion.1. If people were to follow it for salvation, why would there be factual errors? If the whole bible is meant to tell us how to be saved, why would God let there be factual errors in the bible? Remember, scripture is inspired by God. God did not literally pen the book, and this task was undertaken by men. In terms of religous doctrine and religous reproof, it's thought to be infallible. Also note that science wasn't as advanced back in the days that the Bible was written, so the Earthly writers used what they knew about the Earth. As you say, the whole Bible is meant to tell us how to be saved... not learn about the natural world. 2. I do agree with the first part that the bible shouldn't be used a science textbook. But when your debating science and creationism, you're bound to look at the bible for evidence. I'm not a creationist. I don't believe that the world was created in seven days (in fact, the word "day" in the English translation was taken from "yom" which can translate into day or other, longer amounts of time.) Therefore I choose not to use the Bible as evidence for creationism, as scientific evidence for evolution is evident. This is why I'm a theistic evolutionist. 3. Some parts of the bible are a myth. 2 Samuel 7:28: "Now, O Lord GOD, You are God, and Your words are truth." John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. Luke 20:21 They questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, we know that You speak and teach correctly, and You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth." 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; Here are just 4 of the many verses that prove in the bible that whats in the bible is truth. So if you believe that Genesis 1 is a myth, you would think that all these other verses are false, making you not believe the bible is truth.https://bible.knowing-jesus.com...... From https://www.huffingtonpost.com... "Many use the term myth in a pejorative sense to mean that the stories described are not factually true. Others define myth as non-historical tales that contain a moral message. Both of these definitions miss the richness of the term. Mythology is a form of literature that expresses fundamental truths in a way that ordinary discourse is inadequate to describe." A literal translation of the Bible obviously will lead to historical truths, but I believe that what God is referring to here isthe ultimate message of salvation... THAT is what they mean by his word is truth. Never does the Bible say that is is not in error on scientific matters. "God did not simply give dictation to the human authors of Scripture; their contribution is real. Their personalities, perspectives, and writing styles are all discernable in the text—as are the unique situations and circumstances of those to whom they were writing. Yet God’s universal message is present from Genesis to Revelation." (from https://www.biblica.com...) The overall message of the Bible, and the message that God wants to make clear is one of "redemption and revival," and he communicates this through authors who, though they may not have been super-scientists, overall new the message of God and communicated it through their work. 4. Give me the proof and verses. Genesis Chapter 1 is the first Story of Creation, and Genesis Chapter 2 is the Second Story of Creation (starting from verse 4) 5. If the message is true, why would God tell it through myth? God uses human authors who are imperfect and don't know everything there is to know about science to write the Bible. Remember, it's not the literally writing of God, but the inspired writing of God. This could also raise the question "Why didn't God just write the Bible by himself and not have to waste him time with inspiring human writers?" Possibly because the main point the Bible is trying to get across is the redemption of the human race, and one of the ways they can possibly redeem themselves is by listening to God's message and producing scripture from it. 6. Fossil Evidence stuff. [links] Thanks for the links. Although I agree with pretty much everything in them, as I am not a young-Eart Creationist. Fossil evidence is evident enough for me to believe, and theat's why I'm a theistic evolutionist. Questions from opponent in Round 4: 1. I don't see a purpose, please provide a verse that he would have a purpose to do a thing over time instead of doing it right now? Now you are getting into Sola Scriptura, or scripture alone. This is not my belief... I only think the Bible reveals what is necessary for salvation, it's entire goal (which explains the scientific shortcomings). As with your question, I'm not aware of any answer to that in the Bible, as their is no need to answer it. Why God does a lot of things, I question. Perhaps he could've made it even slower then evolution, who knows. However, just because we don't know why God employed evolution, doesn't mean there was no purpose to it. 2. Give me a verse that states God wants us to do things by ourselves? Again, the Bible does not explain everything, but I could point to the fact that God didn't write the Bible outright but left it to human authors. Also, he sent his apostles to help with evangalization. If God wanted too, jesus could've stayed on Earth forever, but instead he left to see if we can help ourselves. While some attribute God/Jesus to a socialist, in that he advocates for giving to the poor, it's also evident that he wants people to help themselves. 3. Whats the purpose than if God knew Animals needed adaptations, why wouldn't God put them there when he created them in the first place? Whats the whole purpose of Evolution if God had the power to completely bypass it? This is a really tough question to answer. Perhaps God wanted to take it slow and let it play out, and perhaps he thought evolution was the best and most natural way to do things. I don't know or claim to know God's intentions in every little detail, but those are what I would probably assume. 4. Did you know there are other books that are not in the bible that are in account of Jesus and salvation? Yes, I did. In 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage the officially compiled the book, dictating what was inspired by God and what wasn't. Conclusion: My opponent makes the mistake of looking to the Bible for scientific evidence about the world, but this is obviosuly not the purpose of the Bible. While he does point out a few scientific errors in the Bible, he does acknowledge that God isn't the direct author of the Bible... God spoke through humans to pass on the ultimate message of salvation and redemption, and imperfect humans did their best to fill in the rest of the book. We have been side-tracked as to the infallibility of the Bible, but I'd also like to point out that my opponent never proved that theistic evolution is not possible. By looking at scientific evidence, which dissporves creationism, and looking at the divine message that God is the ultimate source of the universe(s), which dissproves atheism, it's logical to fall upon the belief of theistic evolution. To keep it fair, i've only responded to direct questions from my opoonent's Round 4. I ask that he do the same for me. Thanks for the debate.