Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[miamited]

ding-ding-ding-ding-ding

Ok, there'll be a 10 minute break between rounds. Each one back to their corner so their coach can refresh and replenish them.

 

[Assyrian]

Well, well, well, if it isn't the fellow who is wrong on almost everything he says about Genesis.

Oh, yes, the Creator God has wings...when he chooses to appear that way. In fact, God can appear to man in any form He chooses, including things like a jasper crystal stone (Rev. 4:3), a lion, a lamb, (Rev. 5;5-6), He can appear as three men (Genesis 18) or one-man-in three (Jesus). In this matter how He appears is unlimited. But because of your acceptance of that ridiculous Darwinian theory you seek to limit Him in order to save your theory from being exposed as the unscriptural lie that it is.

No it was while I was a creationist that I came to realise the writers of scripture, and God himself, had a much greater love and appreciation of metaphor and symbolism than I had. I approached reading the bible as a literalist, and it was the bible that showed me I was wrong. But it also showed me I wasn't alone, that the disciples had spent three years with Jesus trying to come to terms with his love of metaphor and parable. If you are a disciple of Christ, as I am sure you are, let him teach you to love and understand the metaphors, parables, allegory, symbols and poetry in scripture just like he taught his disciples.

 

[mathetes123]

I have found nothing in the theory of evolution that undermines the doctrine of original sin.

Evolution says death preceded Adam. Genesis says death resulted from Adam's original sin because the penalty for sin is death. Since death preceded Adam, according to evolution, there was really no penalty for Adam's sin and everything continues as it has from the beginning. Death, rather than becoming the penalty for sin, becomes the vehicle for evolution, creating life in newer and improved versions.

Evolution says that the account of Adam and Eve is nothing but a story. If we can't accept the account of Adam and Eve as literal, why should we accept anything else in the Bible as literal. Makes it a lot easier to pick and choose what we want to believe when we can just allegorize everything to suit our own purposes.

Evolution says that the first Adam wasn't a literal person. Why should they believe the last Adam was?

 

[shernren]

Well, well, well, if it isn't the fellow who is wrong on almost everything he says about Genesis.

Oh, yes, the Creator God has wings...when he chooses to appear that way. In fact, God can appear to man in any form He chooses, including things like a jasper crystal stone (Rev. 4:3), a lion, a lamb, (Rev. 5;5-6), He can appear as three men (Genesis 18) or one-man-in three (Jesus). In this matter how He appears is unlimited. But because of your acceptance of that ridiculous Darwinian theory you seek to limit Him in order to save your theory from being exposed as the unscriptural lie that it is.

If you read the descriptions of God in the book of Revelations as if they are describing the visual appearance of things, you are in for a world of hermeneutical pain (or hilarity). Consider the Lion and Lamb passage you cited, one of the central visions of the book:

And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.” And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. (Rev 5:5-7, ESV2011)​

The elder told John to behold a Lion: and John saw a Lamb. So was the elder lying, or was John lying? After all, if John chose the word Lamb because he saw a white fuzzball sitting on the throne of Heaven, then (besides the sheer irreverence) the elder was clearly off his rockers calling that a Lion. And if the elder chose the word Lion because he saw a snarly golden feline sitting on the throne of Heaven, then John must've left his bifocals at home to have called that a Lamb. And seven horns and seven eyes! Is Jesus a mutant lamb?

Or maybe Jesus chose to look like a Lion to the elder and a Lamb to John - in which case pity the poor chap who misses out on writing the Revelation to, say, Bob Smithson, because Jesus chose to look like the third hat on his coat rack at home. Or maybe the heavenly beings only ever see carnivorous representations of God, like a lion or a walrus or a hawk, while puny humans only ever see herbivorous representations of God like a lamb - which just goes to show that Jesus must have been a vegetarian!

Again, try it out on Revelation 21:

Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, ... its length and width and height are equal. (Rev 21:9-10, 16, ESV2011)​

Try that on your wedding day, won't you? "Oh darling, you are radiant and beautiful - you remind me of New York, and your length and width and height are equal." One wonders what John's taste in bridal decorations was like - or indeed, what the Lamb's taste was!

I hope I've made the point. What John describes in Revelation 5 is not some lion-lamb hybrid monster, and what John describes in Revelation 21 is not a cubical city-form bride. John is free to use disparate visual imagery, not necessarily because any of them actually correspond to something he saw with eyes whether physical or spiritual, but because they are powerful image-metaphors of important truths concerning the things he is describing:

Jesus is both Lion and Lamb not because His heavenly appearance is based on the Island of Dr. Moreau, but because He is both our conquering king and our Passover sacrifice (with no bearing on His physical appearance); the redeemed people of God are Bride and city and cube not because we will be compacted into such by some cosmic spiritual WALL-E, but because they will be irrevocably betrothed to the love of the Lord, in perfect communion and social harmony with each other, and testament to the beauty of God's presence (with no bearing on our physical appearance).

And if you cannot even distinguish between actual manifestations of the glory of God and visual metaphors of the attributes of God, how on earth will you understand anything deep in the Bible?

 

[shernren]

Evolution says death preceded Adam. Genesis says death resulted from Adam's original sin because the penalty for sin is death. Since death preceded Adam, according to evolution, there was really no penalty for Adam's sin and everything continues as it has from the beginning. Death, rather than becoming the penalty for sin, becomes the vehicle for evolution, creating life in newer and improved versions.

And yet Romans 5 says:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— (Rom 5:12, ESV2011)​

To all life? Not necessarily - only to all men. And if you really were convinced that all death, whether animal or human (to say nothing of vegetable), was the odious consequence of human sin, you would have funerals not just for people but for pet dogs, swatted mosquitoes, and the trillions of animals who die yearly worldwide to feed your insatiable appetite - an appetite for which you have no problems in spreading the consequences of sin.

Evolution says that the account of Adam and Eve is nothing but a story. If we can't accept the account of Adam and Eve as literal, why should we accept anything else in the Bible as literal. Makes it a lot easier to pick and choose what we want to believe when we can just allegorize everything to suit our own purposes.

Yeah! I mean, let's allegorize the death and resurrection of Jesus - oh wait, we have a specific warning against that:

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1Cor 15:17-19, ESV2011)​

Note that there is no similar specific warning against allegorizing the creation account, or anything else in the Bible for that matter.

And I really like clocking in on Sunday, so let's allegorize the Fourth Commandment - oh wait, since an allegory is actually a story for which I recognize the non-literal meaning to be more important than the literal meaning, I can't actually allegorize it, since "Thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy" is not even a story of anything, much less an allegory for anything.

I have a lot of gay friends too, so let's try to allegorize what Paul says in Romans 1! When he talks about men having desire for each other, that must be referring to ... a rugby game! Naw, doesn't quite work out, "homosexuality" can only be homosexuality. And when he talks about it being an error, that must be a metaphor for ... dirty clothes! Hmm, it's hard to see how "an error" can stand for anything other than, well, an error. So "homosexuality is an error" is an allegory for "homosexuality is an error"! Hooray, I've justified homose - oh wait.

The Bible is remarkably resistant to the kind of allegorization you imagine. What would you call someone who claims that something is possible when it actually isn't - and he's never tried it himself even once in his life? Hmm, I can't think of a polite word, but I'll get back to you on it.

Evolution says that the first Adam wasn't a literal person. Why should they believe the last Adam was?

If the Good Samaritan can be a fictional metaphor for a historical good person, why can't the first Adam be a fictional metaphor for a historical last Adam?

In any case, I have quite literally talked to Jesus before, and quite literally never talked to Adam before. QED.

 

[gluadys]

Creationist principles? lol

The data that you have is the same data that creationists have. The only difference is the interpretation. Yes, data has to be interpreted.

OK. When exploring for oil do they interpret the data as young earth creationists or as geologists? Which interpretation is more successful at locating oil?

 

[Hentenza]

OK. When exploring for oil do they interpret the data as young earth creationists or as geologists? Which interpretation is more successful at locating oil?

Their tools of the trade. Sonars, cross section pictures, etc.

 

[gluadys]

Evolution says death preceded Adam. Genesis says death resulted from Adam's original sin because the penalty for sin is death.

Scripture says death was Adam's punishment for sin. It says we all die as Adam did because we all sin as Adam did.

Scripture says nothing at all about other animals or plants or fungi or any other living thing not experiencing death prior to the existence of humans or humanity's fall into sin.

So evolution says nothing inconsistent with the Bible on this.

Evolution says that the account of Adam and Eve is nothing but a story.

No, it doesn't. It only says that humans are descended from non-human ancestors. It makes no comment on the literal nature of Adam and Eve and plenty of evolutionary creationists believe that Adam and Eve were historical persons.


Apparently you have been sold a false bill of goods about what evolution says.

 

[gluadys]

Their tools of the trade. Sonars, cross section pictures, etc.

That only tells you how they get the data. But, as you said, it is a matter of interpretation. How do they interpret that data? As young-earth creationists or according to standard geological interpretations?

 

[mathetes123]

And yet Romans 5 says:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— (Rom 5:12, ESV2011)
​

To all life? Not necessarily - only to all men. And if you really were convinced that all death, whether animal or human (to say nothing of vegetable), was the odious consequence of human sin, you would have funerals not just for people but for pet dogs, swatted mosquitoes, and the trillions of animals who die yearly worldwide to feed your insatiable appetite - an appetite for which you have no problems in spreading the consequences of sin.



Yeah! I mean, let's allegorize the death and resurrection of Jesus - oh wait, we have a specific warning against that:

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1Cor 15:17-19, ESV2011)
​

Note that there is no similar specific warning against allegorizing the creation account, or anything else in the Bible for that matter.

And I really like clocking in on Sunday, so let's allegorize the Fourth Commandment - oh wait, since an allegory is actually a story for which I recognize the non-literal meaning to be more important than the literal meaning, I can't actually allegorize it, since "Thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy" is not even a story of anything, much less an allegory for anything.

I have a lot of gay friends too, so let's try to allegorize what Paul says in Romans 1! When he talks about men having desire for each other, that must be referring to ... a rugby game! Naw, doesn't quite work out, "homosexuality" can only be homosexuality. And when he talks about it being an error, that must be a metaphor for ... dirty clothes! Hmm, it's hard to see how "an error" can stand for anything other than, well, an error. So "homosexuality is an error" is an allegory for "homosexuality is an error"! Hooray, I've justified homose - oh wait.

The Bible is remarkably resistant to the kind of allegorization you imagine. What would you call someone who claims that something is possible when it actually isn't - and he's never tried it himself even once in his life? Hmm, I can't think of a polite word, but I'll get back to you on it.



If the Good Samaritan can be a fictional metaphor for a historical good person, why can't the first Adam be a fictional metaphor for a historical last Adam?

In any case, I have quite literally talked to Jesus before, and quite literally never talked to Adam before. QED.

Such gyrations. Why not just accept the Bible for what it says?

 

[Assyrian]

Such gyrations. Why not just accept the Bible for what it says?

Luke_22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

 

[philadiddle]

Such gyrations. Why not just accept the Bible for what it says?

Nobody does this. Everybody interprets it. Do you actually think that the serpent bruises our heals and we crush it's head?

 

[Assyrian]

Would it be a contradiction to call yourself a young earth creationist and a radical evolutionist?

I don't know about the 'radical' part, though creationists do seem to have come to accept a lot of what Darwin discovered, they just try to hybridise it with their young earth timetable. Is that radical? Reactionary? Or just mixed up?

That would depend on how you define evolution Assyrian.

No, you are the one trying to limit evolution to the definition, the science goes way beyond that, looking at the mechanisms of evolution, the history of evolution on earth and the evidence for the evolutionary history of every species on earth past and present we can study. But then again every science is bigger than the definition of its terms.

The philosophy you are defending is atheistic materialism as applied to biological origins, whether you are a Christian or not.

No you try to confuse it with philosophy, and some atheists like Dawkins confuse their philosophical atheism with science, but Christians shouldn't make that mistake. Christians have always supported science even when it contradicted their interpretation of scripture, which is why when science like Newton's gravitation produced materialistic explanations for the heliocentric motion of other earth and planets, the church (reluctantly) abandoned its geocentric interpretations of scripture and found new ways to interpret the passage they had got wrong. It is creationists who have abandoned the church's tradition respect for the amazing material universe God created.

Heck, what am I saying, going back all the way the Big Bang. God is never considered as an kind of a cause, ever, that's evolution as you are using it. Were it not so there would be opportunity to discuss 'creation' as a viable alternative to Darwinian evolution. Never mind that the New Testament affirms the Genesis account in no uncertain terms.

Again there used to be a time when the church distinguished between miracle and the providence of God by looking to see if there were natural explanations of the events, they only called something a miracle if there wasn't a natural explanation. Creationists have abandoned this very level headed approach to labelling something miracle, and at the same time seem to have lost the traditional Christian understanding that even when they see natural explanation it is still the hand of God who provides it. It is written into the very 'Our Father', the Lord Prayer, "give us this day our daily bread", people have always know where bread comes from, yet we still pray to God to provide and thank him when he does. For anyone with faith, there is no contradiction between knowing life evolved and praising God as its creator.

So before you start casting your ad hominem hand grenades

Really Mark, do you ever read you own posts? You join back in this thread with a rant against your fellow believers, then accuse us of throwing ad hom hand grenades.

around you should consider the explicit meaning of the language and essential doctrine involved. Then maybe you can tell me why naturalistic evolution is so much preferred that you redefine, the clear meaning of words, without telling anyone what you mean by your central term.

Sorry don't know what you are talking about here.

These debates have never been about biological evolution, it's always been about the a priori assumption of universal common descent.

Scientifically universal common descent is a conclusion supported by the evidence not an a priori assumption. Darwin's On the Origin of Species does not assume universal common descent, he thought it was a possibility, but the evidence he had could just as easily be explained by a five or six different lineages. It is only as we have learned of the common biochemistry and later the common genetic code that we have evidence of universal common descent. But most biology doesn't rely on universal common descent either as an assumption or conclusion, but works on the basis of the evidence for evolution in their own field and across every area of life, whether it can be traced back to a universal common ancestor or not.

This is the fundamental flaw in your whole philosophical approach to understanding science, a mistake creationists make again and again trying to attack science with philosophy. Philosophy tries to start from the beginning, from first principles and work it way up. If a philosopher was trying to prove evolution, he might indeed try to start from an a priori assumption of a universal common ancestor and work his way up. But that is not how science works. Science starts from the evidence we have here and works its way back. Which is why a universal common ancestor is a conclusion not an assumption and why nothing in science requires the assumption of a universal common ancestor.

Of course, the whole reason our modern world with all its technology is based on science rather than philosophy, is that since Galileo used science to show the philosophy based physics of Aristotle was simply wrong, science has gone from strength to strength explaining how the world around us works, while philosophy could not even begin to regain the crown. It simply hasn't the power to analyse and accurately describe the working of the universe. So really if you want to use philosophical argument to attack science, you have a pretty major credibility gap to get past.

You may not recognize it as the clear meaning of 'evolution' in the context you are using it in but it's pretty obvious really.

Define your central term and then we can talk about contradictions.

Have a nice day
Mark

The definition of evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Then again, an atom is defined as the smallest component of an element having the chemical properties of the element, but there is an awful lot more to atomic theory than that. You really shouldn't mix up the definition of evolution with the theory of evolution or the evolution of life on earth, or think you can limit all science has learned about how live evolved to a bare definition of the term.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Sooooo... Where's all the published, peer-reviewed scientific papers showing the Earth to be young? Why don't oil companies and such hire young earth creationists to prospect for oil or other minerals?

You mean the peer-reviewed 'scientific papers' that are governed by the peer pressure establishment bigots against creationism?

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

 

[Smidlee]

You mean the peer-reviewed 'scientific papers' that are governed by the peer pressure establishment bigots against creationism?

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

I don't think they are bigots against creationism. They don't like any real challenges to the main theories. Those who disagree with the Big Bang (even though it's more creation friendly) are treated the same way.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

I don't know about the 'radical' part, though creationists do seem to have come to accept a lot of what Darwin discovered, they just try to hybridise it with their young earth timetable. Is that radical? Reactionary? Or just mixed up?

No, you are the one trying to limit evolution to the definition, the science goes way beyond that, looking at the mechanisms of evolution, the history of evolution on earth and the evidence for the evolutionary history of every species on earth past and present we can study. But then again every science is bigger than the definition of its terms.

No you try to confuse it with philosophy, and some atheists like Dawkins confuse their philosophical atheism with science, but Christians shouldn't make that mistake. Christians have always supported science even when it contradicted their interpretation of scripture, which is why when science like Newton's gravitation produced materialistic explanations for the heliocentric motion of other earth and planets, the church (reluctantly) abandoned its geocentric interpretations of scripture and found new ways to interpret the passage they had got wrong. It is creationists who have abandoned the church's tradition respect for the amazing material universe God created.

Again there used to be a time when the church distinguished between miracle and the providence of God by looking to see if there were natural explanations of the events, they only called something a miracle if there wasn't a natural explanation. Creationists have abandoned this very level headed approach to labelling something miracle, and at the same time seem to have lost the traditional Christian understanding that even when they see natural explanation it is still the hand of God who provides it. It is written into the very 'Our Father', the Lord Prayer, "give us this day our daily bread", people have always know where bread comes from, yet we still pray to God to provide and thank him when he does. For anyone with faith, there is no contradiction between knowing life evolved and praising God as its creator.

Really Mark, do you ever read you own posts? You join back in this thread with a rant against your fellow believers, then accuse us of throwing ad hom hand grenades.

Sorry don't know what you are talking about here.

Scientifically universal common descent is a conclusion supported by the evidence not an a priori assumption. Darwin's On the Origin of Species does not assume universal common descent, he thought it was a possibility, but the evidence he had could just as easily be explained by a five or six different lineages. It is only as we have learned of the common biochemistry and later the common genetic code that we have evidence of universal common descent. But most biology doesn't rely on universal common descent either as an assumption or conclusion, but works on the basis of the evidence for evolution in their own field and across every area of life, whether it can be traced back to a universal common ancestor or not.

This is the fundamental flaw in your whole philosophical approach to understanding science, a mistake creationists make again and again trying to attack science with philosophy. Philosophy tries to start from the beginning, from first principles and work it way up. If a philosopher was trying to prove evolution, he might indeed try to start from an a priori assumption of a universal common ancestor and work his way up. But that is not how science works. Science starts from the evidence we have here and works its way back. Which is why a universal common ancestor is a conclusion not an assumption and why nothing in science requires the assumption of a universal common ancestor.

Of course, the whole reason our modern world with all its technology is based on science rather than philosophy, is that since Galileo used science to show the philosophy based physics of Aristotle was simply wrong, science has gone from strength to strength explaining how the world around us works, while philosophy could not even begin to regain the crown. It simply hasn't the power to analyse and accurately describe the working of the universe. So really if you want to use philosophical argument to attack science, you have a pretty major credibility gap to get past.

The definition of evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Then again, an atom is defined as the smallest component of an element having the chemical properties of the element, but there is an awful lot more to atomic theory than that. You really shouldn't mix up the definition of evolution with the theory of evolution or the evolution of life on earth, or think you can limit all science has learned about how live evolved to a bare definition of the term.

"The definition of evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time..."

Does anyone else see how this Darwinian devotee has been brainwashed by the modern evolutionary community to accept such nonsense? That's like defining a Lamborghini as 'an engine with four wheels and a steering wheel'. Real smart.

When I was in school the definitions of evolution went like this:

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
2. a. The process of developing. b. Gradual development.
3. Biology a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.


I didn't start seeing the 'change in allele frequency' idea until the evolutionists had gotten embarrassed in the creation/evolution debates of the 1970-1990's so often and so badly that they started changing the meanings of not only things like 'spontaneous generation' (now abiogenesis) and entropy from 'a measure of disorder in a system' to 'dissipation'...and now even evolution itself has a changed definition.

Through the years they have not only changed the defintions but they have moved the goalposts in many different categories to avoid the stigma of exposure for what evolution really is: a huge, monstrous hoax.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

If you read the descriptions of God in the book of Revelations as if they are describing the visual appearance of things, you are in for a world of hermeneutical pain (or hilarity). Consider the Lion and Lamb passage you cited, one of the central visions of the book:

And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.” And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. (Rev 5:5-7, ESV2011)
​

The elder told John to behold a Lion: and John saw a Lamb.

Your reply is a joke. I don't even take you seriously. What John saw was BOTH. The lamb and the lion were seen interchangeably as God saw fit for Him to be seen. Maybe if you were not using such a corrupt translation of the Bible it might help you.

So was the elder lying, or was John lying?

Neither. Refer to what I said above.

..."a mutant lamb". That's how far removed your mind is from understanding scripture. You can't even grasp in terms of a God who can cause people to see two things at once...or that He can cause some people to see one thing and others to see quite another, intechangeably at His will.

Or maybe Jesus chose to look like a Lion to the elder and a Lamb to John - in which case pity the poor chap who misses out on writing the Revelation to..."

Your ridicule means nothing to me.

Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, ... its length and width and height are equal. (Rev 21:9-10, 16, ESV2011)

Try that on your wedding day, won't you? "Oh darling, you are radiant and beautiful - you remind me of New York, and your length and width and height are equal." One wonders what John's taste in bridal decorations was like - or indeed, what the Lamb's taste was!"

You don't even understand what you're reading to begin with, fella. The 'bride' encompasses those who are born again and will live with Jesus in that great city forever. It is the same as the 'House of David' which encompassed all his familial relations and not the stones that framed the place they lived in.

This is no problem in heaven, the supernatural realm of Almighty God who can do anything. It is only a problem with a Darwinian tainted mind who cannot grasp how He does it.

I hope I've made the point.

You haven't made any point except that you cannnot grasp the power, mind, no ability of the Creator God you claim to believe in.

And if you cannot even distinguish between actual manifestations of the glory of God and visual metaphors of the attributes of God, how on earth will you understand anything deep in the Bible?

This is your problem, not mine. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

I don't think they are bigots against creationism. They don't like any real challenges to the main theories. Those who disagree with the Big Bang (even though it's more creation friendly) are treated the same way.

Yes, they are. They are VERY bigoted against creation scientists no matter how legitimate their investigations and supportive evidence is. They are not to be trusted.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Such gyrations. Why not just accept the Bible for what it says?

Because he is allergic to it, that's why. That's what Darwinian indoctrination does to professing Christians who believe the lies.

 

[Lord Herdsetk]

Look at what Genesis says...

Genesis 2:1-4 (NKJV)
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...

It says clearly that the biblical creation account is the "history of the heavens and the earth". If the creation account is not true, then the book of Genesis is a lie.

If Genesis is a lie, then the origin of the concept of sin is also a lie, so why believe in a messiah coming to save people from sin?

I don't understand why anyone who doesn't believe the biblical account of creation would want to be a christian.

If you don't believe the biblical account of creation, what do you believe, why, and how is it logical to believe as you do?

Lie is such a strong word. To me, lie carries the connotations of warping the truth so much that it is essentially pointless to garner any useful knowledge out of said "lie". It irritates me to no end when people jump to extremes.

You argue that Genesis 2:1-4 is a lie. For that matter, why not also argue that the creation story in Genesis 1 has things happening in a different order than Genesis 2, ergo it is a lie? The problem with claiming that something is a lie is that you immediately shut out anything it says. Do we treat people the same way? Would you immediately ignore everything a spouse says if you were to catch them in a lie, no matter how big or small? Is that how relationships work? Or do you try to make the relationship with your spouse work, so long as the lie was not that damaging? Christ often compares those who followed him to a bride, with himself being the groom. How should we handle our marriage to him?