The geological and paleontological makes it apparent that species evolve.
The Bible is a religious text designed to inform people about God, how to live a decent life, to predict the arrival of a Saviour, his life,suffering and death for our sins and the promise of redemption
It contains some biology but is not a biology text.
It contains history but is not a history text. It is full of symbolism amd allegory as in Christ’s parables.
You CAN believe it is the word of God AND in evolution.
I do.
You can believe in the Bible as the word of God and on evolution.
I do
“The Bible is a religious text designed to inform people about God, how to live a decent life, to predict the arrival of a Saviour,”
Yes.
“his life,suffering and death for our sins and the promise of redemption”
What is life? What is Death? What is sin? Who brought sin into the world?
“It contains some biology but is not a biology text.”
Is Biblical biology true?
“It contains history but is not a history text.”
Is Biblical history true?
“It is full of symbolism amd allegory as in Christ’s parables.”
How do you really know the Bible talks about life, death and sin? How do you know? You are forced to make epistemological assumptions that are only answered by information theory. An information creator (intelligence) sends a message to an information receiver (intelligence).
“You CAN believe it is the word of God AND in evolution. I do.”
Respectfully, you can only believe that by using a set of illogical presuppositions. (For example, was Jesus using allegory and parables when he mentioned Adam and Noah in his discourses? I don’t think that’s consistent in the narrative.)
“You can believe in the Bible as the word of God and on evolution. I do.”
May God bless you, I have answered because you certainly seem to be a brother (or sister) in Christ, and I thought you should know I bear you no ill will.
“The geological and paleontological makes it apparent that species evolve.”
Then why is always that you seem to attack anti-evolutionists with vitriol instead of just presenting this “apparent” evidence?
Anyway, what you say isn’t even a question that anti-evolutionists take issue with. Nobody disagrees that species change over time, or evolve. To say that is in dispute is just a straw man. The real dispute is with the bigger picture that evolutionists infer: that natural selection and other unguided processes can account for the full diversity of life, starting from one simple ancestor.