Do you think that the story of Adam and Eve literally happened?

[The Barbarian]

If God had used evolution scripture would be in harmony with it, it is not.

Your modern revision is not in harmony with the evidence for evolution, but that's kind of a personal issue for you, not anyone else.

How about God made creatures, they have similarities.

And genes that show common descent. Even many creastionist organizations have accepted a limited amount of common descent, based on the same evidence that shows common descent of all living things on Earth. Would you like to learn about it?

Because animals show genetic relationships means they descended from a common ancestor. Creationism is man's revision of the scripture because that is what he wants to believe.

 

[coffee4u]

Your modern revision is not in harmony with the evidence for evolution, but that's kind of a personal issue for you, not anyone else.



And genes that show common descent. Even many creastionist organizations have accepted a limited amount of common descent, based on the same evidence that shows common descent of all living things on Earth. Would you like to learn about it?

Because animals show genetic relationships means they descended from a common ancestor. Creationism is man's revision of the scripture because that is what he wants to believe.

I have no issue. You are free to believe whatever you want. I will continue to believe that Genesis is God's word and is as truthful as the rest of scripture.

 

[The Barbarian]

have no issue. You are free to believe whatever you want.

As you are also. You're free to reject Genesis as it is, and believe the modern rewrite of Genesis called young Earth Creationism; I will continue to believe that Genesis is God's word and is as truthful as the rest of scripture.

 

[coffee4u]

As you are also. You're free to reject Genesis as it is, and believe the modern rewrite of Genesis called young Earth Creationism; I will continue to believe that Genesis is God's word and is as truthful as the rest of scripture.

Whether you are reading the NIV the KJ or the Torah, they all say God created in 6 days, so I don't know what issue you see.

And genes that show common descent

The only true decent are the animals that came from the original kinds.
Anything else such as evolution comes from man's wisdom, not from Genesis.

 

[MrsFoundit]

As you are also. You're free to reject Genesis as it is, and believe the modern rewrite of Genesis called young Earth Creationism; I will continue to believe that Genesis is God's word and is as truthful as the rest of scripture.

"The concept of “long ages,” with the destructive force of a bulldozer, drove into nineteen centuries of carefully constructed Catholic teaching. The first major casualty was the first three chapters of Genesis."

http://catholicorigins.com/

I believe you may interpret Genesis in various ways and still be saved, but your accusation of believing a "modern rewrite" is just plain false. No one has altered the text, and there was no Theistic Evolution until science adopted the concept.

 

[The Barbarian]

"The concept of “long ages,” with the destructive force of a bulldozer, drove into nineteen centuries of carefully constructed Catholic teaching. The first major casualty was the first three chapters of Genesis."

The Catholic Church says otherwise.

"Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution."

Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XIV, For the International Theological Commission
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:

Human Persons Created in the Image of God
Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

Notice that your site lacks imprintur and hihil obstat, which would have been placed therein, if there were no doctrinal or moral errors in the article. Those people speak for themselves, but have not been allowed to speak for the Church as their new doctrines are not those of the Catholic Church.

I believe you may interpret Genesis in various ways and still be saved, but your accusation of believing a "modern rewrite" is just plain false.

See above. Your own source has completely re-interpreted scripture to make it fit their own desires.

No one has altered the text,

They altered the interpretation of the text. That's the modern rewrite. YE creationism, as it exists today, was invented early in the 20th century by the Seventh Day Adventists.

and there was no Theistic Evolution until science adopted the concept.

Science never adopted Theistic Evolution. There wasn't any theistic particle physics either, until science discovered that.

"Theistic evolution" was always kind of problematical for me as a term, because it suggested that science or faith were somehow informing each other in some kind of a synthesis. It's never like that.

Evolution works the same way regardless of one's faith or lack of faith. So does gravity.

 

[hedrick]

"Theistic evolution" was always kind of problematical for me as a term, because it suggested that science or faith were somehow informing each other in some kind of a synthesis. It's never like that.

Evolution works the same way regardless of one's faith or lack of faith. So does gravity.

I agree. However there's a common Christian (mis)understanding that evolution denies God. I think de facto the term theistic evolution is used to indicate a belief in evolution that is consistent with God.

 

[The Barbarian]

I agree. However there's a common Christian (mis)understanding that evolution denies God. I think de facto the term theistic evolution is used to indicate a belief in evolution that is consistent with God.

Yes, that's true. But the term seems to rile some people, and often they wrongly assume some sort of science/faith hybrid.

 

[The Barbarian]

As you are also. You're free to reject Genesis as it is, and believe the modern rewrite of Genesis called young Earth Creationism; I will continue to believe that Genesis is God's word and is as truthful as the rest of scripture.

Whether you are reading the NIV the KJ or the Torah, they all say God created in 6 days, so I don't know what issue you see.

It's that YE creationists have wrongly assumed the figurative nature of the days are literal periods of time. Even in ancient times, Christians knew that they were not. For reasons we've discussed here.

The only true decent are the animals that came from the original kinds.

It's a misuse of the Biblical term "kinds" to try to repurpose it as a biological term or for limited common descent. The Bible, for example, considers bats to be of the bird "kind." They are functional terms, not meant to be what YE creationists have repurposed them to be.

Anything else such as "descent from the original kinds", comes from man's wisdom, not from Genesis.

 

[MrsFoundit]

The Catholic Church says otherwise.

Your claim is that creationism is new. We are not discussing the present day position of The Catholic Church.

YE creationism, as it exists today, was invented early in the 20th century by the Seventh Day Adventists.

Isaac Newton must have had a time machine .

Science never adopted Theistic Evolution. There wasn't any theistic particle physics either, until science discovered that.

No, quite, I meant evolution, as in there wasn't any theistic evolution before science adopted evolution. There was however Creationism.

 

[The Barbarian]

"The concept of “long ages,” with the destructive force of a bulldozer, drove into nineteen centuries of carefully constructed Catholic teaching. The first major casualty was the first three chapters of Genesis."

(Barbarian shows the Catholic Church says otherwise, and that the link offered is not a Catholic source)

Your claim is that creationism is new.

My claim is that your site is not a Catholic source, lacking the nihil obstat and imprintur of a real site.

We are not discussing the present day position of The Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has never taken a doctrinal position on the age of the Earth. Never. Some popes and church authorities have acknowledged the fact of billions of years of Earth history, and some in the past have concluded that it's a few thousand years old, but neither is a position of the Church. Any site that says it is, does not represent the Catholic Church.

Barbarian observes:
YE creationism, as it exists today, was invented early in the 20th century by the Seventh Day Adventists.

Isaac Newton must have had a time machine

Arianism is not the same thing as YE Creationism. Newton never subscribed to the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo"; his deviation from Christian orthodoxy was in denying that Jesus is God.

As you know, YE creationism is much more than supposing a very recent origin for the Earth. It also includes the new doctrine of "life ex nihilo", galloping continents moving thousands of miles in a century or two, and so on.

Newton came up with a young Earth the way he came up with Arianism; by forcing a literal interpretation on scripture.

 

[MrsFoundit]

The Catholic Church has never taken a doctrinal position on the age of the Earth. Never. Some popes and church authorities have acknowledged the fact of billions of years of Earth history, and some in the past have concluded that it's a few thousand years old, but neither is a position of the Church. Any site that says it is, does not represent the Catholic Church.

So contrary to your own claim, creationism is not new.

YE creationism is much more than supposing a very recent origin for the Earth. It also includes the new doctrine of "life ex nihilo", galloping continents moving thousands of miles in a century or two, and so on..

No it is not.

 

[ZNP]

I have no issue. You are free to believe whatever you want. I will continue to believe that Genesis is God's word and is as truthful as the rest of scripture.

I'm lost, what verse in Genesis is not in harmony with evolution?

 

[The Barbarian]

So contrary to your own claim, creationism is not new.

My claim is that YE creationism is a modern invention. As you saw, it was invented in the 20th century by Seventh-Day Adventists.

I suppose anyone who acknowledges God as Creator is technically a Creationist. Young Earth creationists are the ones who have revised Genesis to fit their new ideas.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm lost, what verse in Genesis is not in harmony with evolution?

None are inconsistent with evolution. But the YE interpretation of Genesis is not consistent with evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

YE creationism is much more than supposing a very recent origin for the Earth. It also includes the new doctrine of "life ex nihilo", galloping continents moving thousands of miles in a century or two, and so on..

No it is not.

Well, let's take a look...

Institute for Creation Research:
"If continental separation did occur, the only place within the Bible framework where it could fit would be during Noah's Flood. The cause of Noah's Flood is described in tectonic terms: "all the fountains of the great deep broken up" (Genesis 7:11). The Hebrew word for "broken up" is baga and is used in other Old Testament passages (Zechariah 14:4; Numbers 16:31) to refer to the geologic phenomena of faulting. The mechanism for retreat of the Flood waters is also associated with tectonics. Psalm 104:6,7 describes the abating of the waters which stood above the mountains; the eighth verse properly translated says, "The mountains rose up; the valleys sank down." It is interesting to note that the "mountains of Ararat" (Genesis 8:4), the resting place of the Ark after the 150th day of the Flood, are in a tectonically active region at the junction of three lithospheric plates.11


If continental separation occurred during Noah's Flood, a host of problems in the tectonic dilemma can be solved. Rapid mid-ocean rifting can explain the large quantity of volcanic rocks on the sea floor. The presence of low density crustal rock down to a depth of 700 kilometers within the mantle below trenches can be attributed to rapid underthrusting. The cause for the ancient breaking up of continents can be explained easily by the enormous catastrophic forces of Noah's Flood which broke the lithosphere into moving plates which for a short time overcame the viscous drag of the earth's mantle. The amazing similarity of sedimentary Flood layers in the northeastern United States to those of Britain (i.e., Carboniferous coal strata and Devonian red sandstones) and the absence of these in the North Atlantic ocean basin suggests that continental separation occurred toward the end of the Flood."
Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible

Creationism affirms that God created all things, including life ex nihilo, meaning out of nothing.
Genesis and Creationism

Life ex nihilo:
Facing Reality

Creationism” is the general claim that the Judeo-Creation God cre-ated the universe and life ex nihilo.
https://digitalcommons.georgefox.ed...le.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1750&context=tcl

 

[MrsFoundit]

YE creationism is much more than supposing a very recent origin for the Earth.

"belief in the literal truth of the Bible, especially regarding the creation of matter, life, and humankind in six days. -- Oxford Dictionary"

Statement of Purpose - Creationism & Theistic Evolution Statement of Purpose

the Bible is the source. It is not a modern invention.

 

[ZNP]

"belief in the literal truth of the Bible, especially regarding the creation of matter, life, and humankind in six days. -- Oxford Dictionary"

Statement of Purpose - Creationism & Theistic Evolution Statement of Purpose

the Bible is the source. It is not a modern invention.

I think I have a different take on this debate than any of the theories, though I certainly incorporate the gap theory into my understanding.

In the beginning God created the heavens and Earth -- that is the sum total of Genesis' description of the creation.

The earth became waste and void -- there is the gap

From there on it is not a record of the creation but of the restoration of the Earth after the last ice age. The events do not follow a logical pathway as far as when different creatures first appeared on Earth, but they would follow the precise framework of what would happen in the event of a receding ice age.

 

[coffee4u]

The Catholic Church says otherwise.

"Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution."

Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XIV, For the International Theological Commission
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:

Human Persons Created in the Image of God
Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

Notice that your site lacks imprintur and hihil obstat, which would have been placed therein, if there were no doctrinal or moral errors in the article. Those people speak for themselves, but have not been allowed to speak for the Church as their new doctrines are not those of the Catholic Church.



See above. Your own source has completely re-interpreted scripture to make it fit their own desires.



They altered the interpretation of the text. That's the modern rewrite. YE creationism, as it exists today, was invented early in the 20th century by the Seventh Day Adventists.



Science never adopted Theistic Evolution. There wasn't any theistic particle physics either, until science discovered that.

"Theistic evolution" was always kind of problematical for me as a term, because it suggested that science or faith were somehow informing each other in some kind of a synthesis. It's never like that.

Evolution works the same way regardless of one's faith or lack of faith. So does gravity.

What does the catholic church have to do with the straightforward reading of Genesis?

You are claiming the King James and other versions have rewritten the text to alter the meaning, that creation did not take 6 days, where?
So let's use the Torah or are you claiming that is rewritten falsely too?
Bereishit - Genesis - Chapter 1 (Parshah Bereishit)

The KJ was written in 1611
The Seventh-day Adventists did not start until 1863 as far as I am aware, so long after the King James Bible.

 

[The Barbarian]

What does the catholic church have to do with the straightforward reading of Genesis?

I was showing that a supposedly Catholic source was nothing of the kind. The Church does not take a doctrinal position on whether one should take a straightforward interpretation of Genesis, or interpret it as literal days.

You are claiming the King James and other versions have rewritten the text to alter the meaning,

No, that's your invention, not mine.

The Seventh-day Adventists did not start until 1863 as far as I am aware, so long after the King James Bible.

As you know, prior to the Seventh Day Adventist invention of YE creationism, most creationists were OE. The British Baptist evangelist, Spurgeon, for example, read the KJV to mean millions of years.