Evolution and The Bible are incompatible

Well, let's look at what explicit means for a moment: "fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal."This would certainly fit the definition. In order to be an explicit teaching, the Bible doesn't have to give a dissertation on a topic and then a thorough rebuttal. Genesis 1 indicates that the days were days as we understand them to be. It is also quite clear that Adam and Eve were created of the dust of the earth, and from Adam's rib, respectively. That seems to be pretty clear to me. From the language of the text, alone, you could not get anything other than a standard week for the week of creation. You must introduce elements foreign to the Scriptures in order to interpret the passage any other way.Actually, I believe the modern church has, in fact, gotten away from the Holy Spirit's leading. In the early centuries, A.D., churches met in peoples' living rooms. Now we have mega churches where one can get lost if they don't want to serve in the church or really get to know anyone. I wouldn't say the message always trumps fact in the Bible. After all, we're supposed to love each other better than ourselves. The original church sold all their possessions to give to the poor because they were so moved by the Holy Spirit. As far as the treatment of slaves, the Bible never supports slavery. In fact, rather than kill pagans it was better to take them as slaves and once they did, they had to treat them benevolently.The Book of Genesis reads like a history book. If you didn't look at outside sources you would never even think to question that the book of Genesis was meant literally. It certainly doesn't seem figurative from the language used. You can only get that by looking outside the Bible. No one was around during the creation of the world, so of course it can't be verified. However, it was delivered supernaturally to Moses by God and I don't think Christians should question the Word of the Lord. I also don't think there's sufficient cause to read it as anything other than literal.Contention One: The language usedThe sun was not created until day four. However, God did say "let there be light." This light was His shekinah glory. In the new Heaven and new Earth (as described in Revelation 21:23), there was no sun or moon because God's glory was the light of the city. This is the same light that God called into being when He said those words. This is not an ad hoc explanation but a perfectly reasonable one. I don't think He turned the light off, but I think the passage of time was the same. If a day was 24 hours, whether God's light shone the entire time would be irrelevant. God said He separated the light from the darkness, meaning there was still darkness (just not where His light was shining). It would still be a 24-hour period. And it's not unreasonable to suppose that God sustained the plants before the advent of photosynthesis. That seems a relatively small matter compared to creating the entire universe.Contention Two: Adam and EveI disagree that this contention is not powerful. Whenever Jesus spoke in parable, He always explained what the parables meant (and it was recorded in Scripture). If Genesis 1 is meant to be taken figurative, then tell me how Adam being created from dust and Eve being created from Adam's rib can be representative of the evolutionary process. Tell me how the evening and morning passing (which is how the Jews regarding day to day), signaling each new day, could be representative of an indeterminate amount of time. These must have good explanations if they're to be taken as figurative.Contention Three: The Jewish WorkweekHow does the story figuratively represent the Sabbath? The Sabbath was the seventh day of the week, which is the day in which God rested. How do you take the story as a whole to be figurative of that one day?God is not deceitful. The Bible is God's word. If God created the universe as billions of years old and didn't tell us, that would be deceitful. Without looking at outside sources, you could not get an old earth. By claiming that Genesis is figurative, since it doesn't offer an explanation as Jesus did with His parables, then God would be deceiving us, with His very Word, by not telling us the truth.The Scriptures, not science, is our source of spiritual truth. God created the universe with the appearance of age. He gave us His word so that we would know how the earth was created, and that it is not as old as we think it is. If we don't take God's word for it, we are to blame, not Him.When Jesus turned water into wine, He turned it into good wine. The headwaiter was praised because of it. The miracle was a few seconds old, but it was, for all intents and purposes, aged wine. Adam and Eve would have appeared to have been adults to the naked eye, even though they were created just a few seconds before. Appearances can be deceiving, but God is not deceiving.(1) Evolution and the Bible are possibly compatibleI did ask at the outset for no semantic arguments. I have shown that the Bible indicates the universe was created in six days, and that Adam was created from dust and Eve was created from Adam's rib. This clearly shows that evolution did not happen and that the universe is young. The only way to get otherwise is by looking at outside sources, which is not a proper way to interpret the Scriptures. I have shown that evolution and the Bible are not possibly compatible because the Bible teaches the opposite.(2) Evolution and the Bible are probably compatibleThe difference between the Enuma Elish(3) Evolution is supported by the BibleI still don't think the likelihood of what appears to be true is greater than the likelihood that it is false. We see in at least two situations (Jesus turning water into wine and the creation of Adam and Eve) that God created with the appearance of age. So we have precedent. Judging from the passages themselves, without looking at outside sources, we could not draw any conclusion other than it should be taken literally.