Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[dms1972]

But Scripture provides two different creation stories. he first is Genesis 1:1-2:3, and the second is Genesis 2:4-25. The first that sets out seven days of creation.

In the second creation story, things are a little different. First of all, individual days are not specified. And the sequence of creation is very different.

Which is correct?

I think Extraneous has made a very good point here. Jesus quoted from both the first chapter and the second of Genesis, and the Bible as a whole doesn't pit the one against the other.

There is one activity of divine creation. The first chapter of Genesis reveals the Triune God creating by speaking. Chapter one covers the whole creation and the second chapter seems to provide a shorter account of the same creation not altered in sequence but leading into the account of the Garden of Eden, the two trees, its rivers, the naming of the different creatures, the creation of the first woman from Adam. Its not two competing creation stories. It's one account of creation, but I sometimes think of the second chapter as being like a cinema sequence as as it zooms through the mist to focus on the Garden of Eden. Does that help any?

 

[Archivist]

There is one activity of divine creation. The first chapter of Genesis reveals the Triune God created by speaking. Chapter one covers the whole creation and the second chapter seems to provide a shorter account of the same creation not altered in sequence but leading into the account of the Garden of Eden, the two trees, its streams, the naming of the different creatures, the creation of the first woman from Adam. Its not two competing creation stories. It's one account of creation but I sometimes think of the second chapter as having a tele-photo zoom on, as it zooms through the mist to focus on the Garden of Eden. Does that help any?

Then please expalin the difference in the order.

 

[Extraneous]

Then please expalin the difference in the order.

Its irrational to discount either chapter, because to do so means to discount THe gospels of Mathew and Mark, where Jesus quotes both Genesis chapters 1 and 2 together. Also, to discount one Genesis chapter means to discount Hebrews as well, and to discount the other Genesis chapter is to discount Paul's letters. Unless you want to throw out all scripture and become an Atheist, it doesnt make sense to discount either chapter.

 

[Archivist]

Its irrational to discount either chapter, because to do so means to discount THe gospels of Mathew and Mark, where Jesus quotes both Genesis chapters 1 and 2 together. Also, to discount one Genesis chapter means to discount Hebrews as well, and to discount the other Genesis chapter is to discount Paul's letters. Unless you want to throw out all scripture and become an Atheist, it doesnt make sense to discount either chapter.

Exactly where did I say that I was discounting one chapter over another? I said no such thing. I simply pointed out the discrepancies between the two chapters.

My personal view, which I believe many Christians share, is that the creation accounts in Genesis are allegories, not actual discriptions of what occurred.

I'm still waiting for anyone to explain the discrepancies between the two chapters.

 

[Extraneous]

Exactly where did I say that I was discounting one chapter over another? I said no such thing. I simply pointed out the discrepancies between the two chapters.

My personal view, which I believe many Christians share, is that the creation accounts in Genesis are allegories, not actual discriptions of what occurred.

I'm still waiting for anyone to explain the discrepancies between the two chapters.

I believe they are allegories as well, however i cant discount the possibility that it may be more than allegory. I also cannot believe evolution, because that theory is not found on solid theory, but a shaky assertion.

 

[Extraneous]

Archivist, tell us your explanation of Genesis one and two

 

[Archivist]

Archivist, tell us your explanation of Genesis one and two

I already stated in this thread that I believe in evolution and that I regard the creation accounts in Genesis as allegories, not actual discriptions of what occurred.

I am still waiting for anyone to expalin the discrepancies between the two chapters.

 

[Extraneous]

I already stated in this thread that I believe in evolution and that I regard the creation accounts in Genesis as allegories, not actual discriptions of what occurred.

I am still waiting for anyone to expalin the discrepancies between the two chapters.

I know you believe in evolution, and that Genesis 1 and 2 are allegory, but i was wanting to hear your theory about what those allegories mean. If you already posted it, give me a link and i'll check it out.

 

[Archivist]

I know you believe in evolution, and that Genesis 1 and 2 are allegory, but i was wanting to hear your theory about what those allegories mean. If you already posted it, give me a link and i'll check it out.

Simple, they mean that God is responsible for creating everything. I don't beiieve that it is necessary to believe in a literal view of Genesis, although peole on this thread have said that if you reject the Creation story found in Genesis then it is unlikely that you could be a Christian.

Now I'm still expalin the discrepancies between the two chapters.

 

[Extraneous]

Simple, they mean that God is responsible for creating everything. I don't beiieve that it is necessary to believe in a literal view of Genesis, although peole on this thread have said that if you reject the Creation story found in Genesis then it is unlikely that you could be a Christian.

Now I'm still expalin the discrepancies between the two chapters.

People have given their explanation for what you call discrepancies. What is your explanation for them?

 

[Archivist]

People have given their explanation for what you call discrepancies. What is your explanation for them?

I believe that I already addressed them. What specifically are you saying that wasn't addressed?

 

[Extraneous]

I believe that I already addressed them. What specifically are you saying that wasn't addressed?

Im sorry, but i missed them, please just show me a link and i'll read it. Thanks.

Show me your explanation for these discrepancies.

 

[Archivist]

Im sorry, but i missed them, please just show me a link and i'll read it. Thanks. Show me your explanation for these discrepancies.

For example, it was earlier said that Chapter 1 provided the general account, Chapter 2 was specific to the garden. Yet chapter 1 said that animals were created before man, chapter 2 say animals were created after amn. What would this mean, that some animals were craeted before man and others were created later? But that isn't what chapter 1 says. Further Chapter 1 says taht God craeted man (male and female) on the 7th day, yet 2 says taht he craeted Adam, then created animals, then created Eve.

 

[Extraneous]

For example, it was earlier said that Chapter 1 provided the general account, Chapter 2 was specific to the garden. Yet chapter 1 said that animals were created before man, chapter 2 say animals were created after amn. What would this mean, that some animals were craeted before man and others were created later? But that isn't what chapter 1 says. Further Chapter 1 says taht God craeted man (male and female) on the 7th day, yet 2 says taht he craeted Adam, then created animals, then created Eve.

From what you seem to be saying here, one chapter is in error, but you also said earlier that you believe both chapters are not in error, but are allegories. Im not understanding what you are asserting.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think i know some key ideas. Its because it undermines the creation story and that people will become irreligious?

Well wouldnt that be an issue about the idea of the earth is flat if the bible is literal on that part i mean?

What i mean is that science explains our physicial world. The main point i am making is that Creation Story had two interpretations in medieval ages. Allegory" basically a deeper meaning than it is. Or "Literally" like just like it is written.

So basically allegory seems to be the key point then. Since that can be used. Since God is outside our understanding. Science is a method just to understand the world we live in more or less.

So i dont see the problem with evolution, because it doesnt undermine the scripture in the sense of it not being true?

Although i do believe its a shame that more people who lack understanding go away because of ignorance and just dont bother trying to understand why Christianity is a religion to help your life.

But i am curious to what you think?

Considering that 'most Christians' are Catholics, I don't think your premise is true. I'd say most Catholics don't care, but those that do believe that Darwin was wrong, but that some form of evolution took place, and that it's compatible with Genesis 1 and 2.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not all Christians believe the Creation story. I believe in Evolution.

I believe both. Just not Darwinism.

 

[Archivist]

From what you seem to be saying here, one chapter is in error, but you also said earlier that you believe both chapters are not in error, but are allegories. Im not understanding what you are asserting.

No, I don't think I said that either was in error. I said taht there were discrepancies between the two chapters.

 

[Extraneous]

Considering that 'most Christians' are Catholics, I don't think your premise is true. I'd say most Catholics don't care, but those that do believe that Darwin was wrong, but that some form of evolution took place, and that it's compatible with Genesis 1 and 2.

Thats not accurate. There are 800 million Protestants and 1.2 Billion Catholics. That doesn't count Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans and others. Protestants are not far behind Catholics in numbers. Add others to Protestants and you might even be outnumbered

 

[Extraneous]

No, I don't think I said that either was in error. I said taht there were discrepancies between the two chapters.

You asked which of the two accounts was true. That indicates that you thought one was not true.

 

[Archivist]

Thats not accurate. There are 800 million Protestants and 1.2 Billion Catholics. That doesn't counting Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans and others. Protestants are not far behind Catholics in numbers.

Others like Oriental Orthodox. I always thought that Anglicans were counted with Protestants, but I could be wrong on that.