Should Genesis be taken literally?

[SeventyOne]

The matter of the truthfulness of the theory of evolution is not the point.

The point is that you lied about me.

I did not. Every time you make a claim concerning the viability of evolution, you lie against the scripture. There's been a lot of that.

 

[KWCrazy]

Of course! Let's be clear - notwithstanding other aspects of the back-and-forth here, the creationists (perhaps not all, but many) are clearly misrepresenting some basic facts:

1. Evolution is clearly not a religion - to suggest this is a violent perversion of proper thinking.

2. The theory of evolution was developed using scientific reasoning (this would be true even if the scientific consensus turns out to be mistaken).

3. It is clearly not valid reasoning to arbitrarily (without justification) rule out the possibility of a metaphorical reading of the creation account. This is because it is otherwise clear that some parts of the Bible are not intended to be taken literally.

4. The "it's just a theory" argument, which is based on either an intentional or an ignorance-based misrepresentation of what scientists mean by the word "theory".

And there may be more.

1. Anything you elevate above God becomes your god. If you put theories of origin ahead of your Bible, then science is your god and evolution is your religion.
2, Scientific reasoning cannot possibly ever find the truth if the truth involves a supernatural creation,
3. Since no Hebrew scholars believe that Genesis was written to mean anything other than what it says, to pretend otherwise is foolishness and lying to yourself.
4 Evolution is an unprovable theory of origins. Rejecting the theory is not a rejection of all science. People who claim that if you reject evolution you need to reject the personal computer come off as unbelievably stupid.

 

[expos4ever]

Since you call the evolutionary lie as truth,....

If evolution is really a lie, you have to believe that tens of thousands of highly credentialed experts, including the likes well-known Christian scientists Francis Collins, are lying and thereby risking their professional reputations.

Still want to stick with the "evolution is a lie" line?

 

[expos4ever]

I did not. Every time you make a claim concerning the viability of evolution, you lie against the scripture. There's been a lot of that.

You most certainly did lie. To wit:

You've made it clear over and over that you reject what the Bible says.

Since you acknowledge actually reading my posts, you (unless you have reading comprehension problems) have to know that I do not "reject what the Bible says". Instead, I reject a literal reading of the creation account.

I have been so clear about this that, if you have been reading my posts, as you claim you have, there is no explanation for your comment other than that you are lying.

 

[Speedwell]

Show me.

show you what? Animals have no idea they are going to die. Or do you think otherwise? Only we humans know that we will die. Likewise, animals do not sin, because they do not know right from wrong. So, taking Genesis literally, we could not sin and we did not know about death until Adam ate the fruit of that tree. Sin and death came came into the world at that time, just as Paul tells us. For "evolutionists" it is much the same. Somewhere along the line we acquired the ability to contemplate the consequences of our actions, with the same result as above, and Paul is still not wrong. I can only assume that you creationists require that there was no cessation of life before the fall for some other reason that you're not telling us.

 

[expos4ever]

4 Evolution is an unprovable theory of origins.

Correct. Who claimed evolution was PROVABLE?

 

[expos4ever]

3. Since no Hebrew scholars believe that Genesis was written to mean anything other than what it says, to pretend otherwise is foolishness and lying to yourself.

Care to withdraw before I show otherwise?

 

[JacksBratt]

I want to go on record as expressing the belief that acceptance of evolution forces one to deny that death of all forms is a result of the fall. And that certainly may present a challenge to those of us who wish to affirm the inerrancy of the Bible while not committing the intellectual suicide that is unavoidable if you deny the fact of evolution.

So, you wish to "affirm the inerrancy of the bible"........but you believe that intellectual suicide is unavoidable if you deny the "fact" of evolution"?

Yep, that's a conundrum. Good luck with it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

And I would like to go on record that the death that comes from the sin of Adam is not the death of animals, but rather the death of Adam and his descendants.

Romans 20 19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the revelation of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but because of the One who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

 

[JacksBratt]

show you what? Animals have no idea they are going to die. Or do you think otherwise? Only we humans know that we will die.

You don't think animals know they are going to die. Or, any comprehension of death? You have obviously never been on a farm when you have to kill a bunch of chickens or hogs or cattle at a stockyard.

The chickens literally defecate with the pre knowledge of their coming death.

 

[expos4ever]

1. Anything you elevate above God becomes your god. If you put theories of origin ahead of your Bible, then science is your god and evolution is your religion

You are making up your own definition of what the term "religion" means.

 

[expos4ever]

So, you wish to "affirm the inerrancy of the bible"........but you believe that intellectual suicide is unavoidable if you deny the "fact" of evolution"?

Yep, that's a conundrum. Good luck with it.

Thank you. I choose to deal with challenges, rather than to ignore reality.

 

[JacksBratt]

That's simply a crazy use of the word religion. Misusing words like that allows all kinds of logical errors to be made.

You can find as many sites stating that evolution is a religion as you can for those that emphatically state the opposite...

However, I like this one. Since evolution is unprovable it is by faith that you believe it. Anyway, here's the definition:

Dr. Michael Ruse, from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Guelph in Ontario, is a philosopher of science, particularly of the evolutionary sciences. He is the author of several books on Darwinism and evolutionary theory and in an article in the National Post he wrote:7

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

 

[JacksBratt]

Thank you. I choose to deal with challenges, rather than to ignore reality.

You do realize that it drove Darwin, a Christian, insane? Due to his conflicting belief in God and the anti biblical view of evolution.

You may be able to twist and spin the scriptures, misinterpret them, take them out of context, write them off as an allegorical account.... all to fit them into the musings of men.

Or, you can except the fact that the Bible is right and some day science will catch up. Problem is, scientists will try to hide it to protect their religious attachment to a concept that requires more faith than Christianity.

 

[expos4ever]

You can find as many sites stating that evolution is a religion as you can for those that emphatically state the opposite...

That's because any kook or crackpot can create a webpage.

 

[JacksBratt]

That's because any kook or crackpot can create a webpage.

Sad, but every crackpot has the same rights as the other crackpots.

 

[Douvie]

So the word: "sole" is not actually a word that is in the Bible? What is the meaning of the passage in Revolution where we are not to add to the words of the book or take away from them?

The word is not sole but sola! There are a lot of things nott mentioned in the Bible like evolution.

When we use the term Sola Scriptura we are saying the Scriptures Alone - not Apostolic Tradition - is our guide, our life our all. For Christ Jesus is the Living Word and came that all who truly believe would have His Light. The problem is men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds are/were evil. The Bible is the record of God's dealing with sinful men and God's Word is eternal.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

And we are by no means adding to it.

 

[expos4ever]

However, I like this one. Since evolution is unprovable it is by faith that you believe it.

Of course not. Is it "faith" to believe that carry a lump of plutonium in your pocket will kill you? Only in the strictest sense, a sense that has no connection at all to how the term "faith" is used by normal people. Even if something is not provable, it is not "faith" to believe it if there is overwhelming evidence in favor of it.

 

[expos4ever]

Dr. Michael Ruse, from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Guelph in Ontario, is a philosopher of science, particularly of the evolutionary sciences. He is the author of several books on Darwinism and evolutionary theory and in an article in the National Post he wrote:7

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

Ruse has clearly stated that he believes Darwinian theory is CORRECT.

 

[expos4ever]

You do realize that it drove Darwin, a Christian, insane? Due to his conflicting belief in God and the anti biblical view of evolution.

Not relevant. How Darwin responded to his findings has no connection to the matter of whether or not his findings were correct.