Does believing Genesis is wrong make me a bad Christian?

[Job 33:6]

I didn't mention animals tracks or nests. I believe things like that happened after God created the world, .

I imagined so.

Pretty much any canyon on earth is in rock layers in which there are things like trackways. .

You had said "If you as a geologist observe erosion and have calculated it will take 100 thousand years for this canyon to form, well good for you, that is probably true,".

If it were true, then it would mean that something made those foot steps, 100,000 years ago. Which would presumably mean that earth would not have been a formless void and that time was passing.

 

[Favoredclay]

At the end of the day I find the pondering of creation interesting and important only as a reference to God as the source of who we are and all we have. That in fact all the earth is his. In my relationship with him, I am grateful he made such a wonderful place for me to learn about him and have the opportunity to be his adopted son. However, aside from it being a part my creator and my first dwelling, it is only a key component in my opportunity to have a relationship with Jesus. I find it all quite interesting and the understanding of the science behind it all helps us to be better. God made this part of our journey, to be discoverers and as the earth filled with people we would develop technology to support a densely populated earth. God also understood man would venture into self glorification in his gain of knowledge, this is a component of "free will". That is why he will bring all into judgement to establish his eternal kingdom. I think the debate over creation or evolution is to some extent recreational and also a way to dismiss God and give sovereign reign of the earth completely to man. When it comes to my destiny how I imagine the creation events does not matter, whether I have trusted Jesus does. One thing I do feel links salvation to creation is simply having faith in God, that he has and will do as the word says. If we question whether the scriptural accounts are in error or completely false means we actually don't believe in God's sovereignty in a whole. So we can debate all we want, we'll never completely figure it out.

I do fall in the camp that I think a day in early Genesis is not a literal 24 hours until man showed up on day 6. Time had no relevance until Adam needed it for reference. Time is simply a measure for us, it means nothing in eternity. When we are eternally remade what difference will a day mean? After an eon we'll just look at this life as a speck.

When I debate it, it is mostly in defense of God as creator and the belief that the Bible is his spoken word given to man to record for future generations. Whether it is determinitive to my destiny in eternity, no it's just background information. Kind of like I went fishing yesterday and that is fact, but it has no bearing on the importance of what I do today other than a meal for today may be provided. Even then in another 24 hrs the meal will literally pass. It was historic record in my life, but my life moves forward not backward. Some historic facts have bearing going forward, but most don't. Sorting out what does and doesn't is the work at hand.

This is my belief and no one has to agree, in fact they are welcome to disagree. However, it is not permission to judge me poorly or be mean towards me. I don't believe the way I do to make anyone happy or angry, it's just the best way for me to live at peace. Sure I'll debate my beliefs in an effort to grow and maybe help others, and at times my belief may even hurt others feelings, but I never have any intent towards malice. We're all moving forward.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The problem with metaphors is that they aren't labeled. They aren't in a separate color, or underlined. You detect a metaphor because a literal reading doesn't make sense, but there's a sensible non-literal meaning. Saying that Jesus is a piece of bread is an example of something that makes no sense literally but has a very reasonable non-literal meaning.

That is not a problem. There are things called Study Bibles with a Concordance section and footnotes.

I'm fine with the Lutheran understanding that Jesus is present in and under the bread and wine. But that's not a literal reading.

Are you a Lutheran or Presbyterian?

 

[hedrick]

That is not a problem. There are things called Study Bibles with a Concordance section and footnotes.



Are you a Lutheran or Presbyterian?

Presbyterian. The person I was responding to is Lutheran.

 

[coffee4u]

I imagined so.

Pretty much any canyon on earth is in rock layers in which there are things like trackways. .

You had said "If you as a geologist observe erosion and have calculated it will take 100 thousand years for this canyon to form, well good for you, that is probably true,".

If it were true, then it would mean that something made those foot steps, 100,000 years ago. Which would presumably mean that earth would not have been a formless void and that time was passing.

I might have put that badly, I mean if everything was made by natural events only (I don't believe that) and if that was all there was then yes I can that being correct. But I don't believe that at all. I believe God is the creator and that he created in 6 days the world to be whatever he wanted it to be. The flood, as well as smaller floods and normal erosion also affect what we see.

 

[NBB]

What point would stages give?

If Adam died 930 years after he was created the days could not be millions of years or thousands of years and doubtfully hundreds of years. If each day were hundreds of years what would that help with? You need millions for the theory of evolution not hundreds or thousands.

There was evening and morning so the earth was turning and a light source was shining upon it. What that light source was we are not told, perhaps it was God himself or some other temporary light.

God is outside of time and time on the earth did not come into existence until that first 'evening and morning'. Perhaps away from the earth there is no time.

I don't know, if the sun was not there why a imaginary 'light sourrce' maybe the stages were of different time period some short and some more long. Its possible, why the hard stance on a 24 hour period if there was no sun the first day. Maybe the 'night and morning part' was to illustrate that the periods ended and not literal morning and night.

 

[eleos1954]

Nobody can disprove what has been proven, obviously. Proof is everywhere that the whole world and all of nature evolved over billions of years, not less than a week. Mass extinctions including the biggest flood in world history are known to have occurred hundreds of millions of years prior to the existence of humans, especially homo sapiens - the last remaining species. I simply cannot for the life of me believe what the Bible says about the Creation and timing of the Great Flood, at least in terms of being the worst ever, is more accurate than what scientists discover. But in my heart I believe the Bible is God's Word and believe in miracles, so I don't want to feel like I am betraying Him in favor of sinners. Am I screwed up about my religion?

I'd suggest you go get this book read it carefully and re-evaluate your thinking.

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Impossible-Dr-John-Ashton-ebook/dp/B008GUMR84

 

[GodLovesCats]

I refuse to even think about the possibility evolution is impossible. It has been proven beyond doubt in all parts of Earth.

 

[Archivist]

I'd suggest you go get this book read it carefully and re-evaluate your thinking.

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Impossible-Dr-John-Ashton-ebook/dp/B008GUMR84

Interesting that the author is an adjunct professor at two universities but isn’t full-time.

 

[Favoredclay]

I refuse to even think about the possibility evolution is impossible. It has been proven beyond doubt in all parts of Earth.

That is a very debatable statement and an opinion. Beyond doubt would mean overwhelming absolute irrefutable physical evidence. I don't think you could find many if any scientist that would agree with that statement. Some who study it will insist it is the best theory, but there are also many who say it has too many gaps, most all will agree it is still theory. The fact that even one author like eleos1954 cited disputes it removes it from beyond all doubt to theory. I understand this is your belief, but it's also a big point of contention with the Christian Faith. So considering your original post, this is why you struggle with resolving your faith in God. That doesn't mean you have failed, it just means your working it out. I would just caution you on making unmovable statements. In the end it's your decision, not everyone is going to agree. The future holds the answer.

 

[nolidad]

Your post starting with Lazarus is history.

I don't know about the beginning part....
There are different interpretations from solid Christians.

And isn't it amazing that the theistic evolution hypothesis is rejected by those who hold Gods Word as fully inspired and also rejected by the secularists who believe in evolution w/o God!

also theistic evolution did not even come to play until the late 1860's. The Father of it was Asa Grey in an attempt to meld Scripture with what was thought as "scientific evidence".

Once again empirical science and science verified by the scientific method shows macro or Darwinian evolution could never take place by mutation preserved by natural selection no matter how many billions of years we give it!

 

[nolidad]

Interesting that the author is an adjunct professor at two universities but isn’t full-time.

As are 75% of professors! He has held full time professorships at many schools in the past, but as of late takes the pat time teaching tracks. That does not make His works erroneous, just his teaching career changed of his own desire!

 

[Job 33:6]

That is a very debatable statement and an opinion. Beyond doubt would mean overwhelming absolute irrefutable physical evidence. I don't think you could find many if any scientist that would agree with that statement. Some who study it will insist it is the best theory, but there are also many who say it has too many gaps, most all will agree it is still theory. The fact that even one author like eleos1954 cited disputes it removes it from beyond all doubt to theory. I understand this is your belief, but it's also a big point of contention with the Christian Faith. So considering your original post, this is why you struggle with resolving your faith in God. That doesn't mean you have failed, it just means your working it out. I would just caution you on making unmovable statements. In the end it's your decision, not everyone is going to agree. The future holds the answer.

There is nothing debatable about evolution being possible.

As some have already said here, God can truly do anything.

But further, studies suggest that some 95+% of scientists, and something on the order of 99% of natural scientists, accept evolution.

There is debate over some fine mechanisms such as what are the most prominent causes of evolution or in what ways does the mode or rate of evolution fluctuate and by what number of pressures. There is discussion about these details of evolution, just as any group of scientists debate and discuss details of any other process. How does gravity work for example. But collectively, there is little doubt over fundamental concepts of common descent just as there is on the existence of gravity.

Indeed, even intelligent design figures such as Michael Behe accept common descent (or monkey to man evolution as critics call it). Let alone the countless of those who aren't ID advocates.

Perhaps we can Google polls and statistics.

 

[Job 33:6]

Project Steve - Wikipedia

Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Stephen or Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution," such as the Answers in Genesis's list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors while making it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!" It also honors Stephen Jay Gould.[1] The level of support for evolution among scientists is very high. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time."[2]

However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which it turns out is roughly 1 percent of scientists,[1] Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, with about 54% of the listed Steves being biologists.[3] The "List of Steves" webpage provides an updated total of scientist "Steves" who have signed the list.[4] As of February 10, 2020, Project Steve has 1,448 signatories.[4]

 

[nolidad]

If this was true, every human being with an education would believe it. The reasons people do not believe in a young Earth are obvious unless you decide without knowing anything only the Bible matters.

Well I know many things and I still think that Gods Word Trumps mans ideas everytime!

That plus also coming from being an ardent evolutionst to a young earth creationist based on science helps loads!

Once again the BB could never have occurred as described and evolution via mutation preserved by natural selection cannot happen on this earth even if given 1,000,000,000,000,000 years! Science has proven that over and over and over and over again.

If Jesus died and rose agasin from the dead is true (and it is) then every human being with an education would believe it! but the vast super majority of the world does not believe it (even many who call themselves Christian). There are reasons God openly declared in His Word why this is so!

 

[nolidad]

There is nothing debatable about evolution being possible.

As some have already said here, God can truly do anything.

But further, studies suggest that some 95+% of scientists, and something on the order of 99% of natural scientists, accept evolution.

There is debate over some fine mechanisms such as what are the most prominent causes of evolution or in what ways does the mode or rate of evolution fluctuate and by what number of pressures. There is discussion about these details of evolution, just as any group of scientists debate and discuss details of any other process. How does gravity work for example. But collectively, there is little doubt over fundamental concepts of common descent just as there is on the existence of gravity.

Indeed, even intelligent design figures such as Michael Behe accept common descent (or monkey to man evolution as critics call it). Let alone the countless of those who aren't ID advocates.

Perhaps we can Google polls and statistics.

Key Word is ACCEPT! Not proven as is what Science seeks to do. Or verify if one wishes to be more specific!

Truth and fact is not established by polls or statistics or even a majority.

 

[Archivist]

Project Steve - Wikipedia

Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Stephen or Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution," such as the Answers in Genesis's list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors while making it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!" It also honors Stephen Jay Gould.[1] The level of support for evolution among scientists is very high. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time."[2]

However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which it turns out is roughly 1 percent of scientists,[1] Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, with about 54% of the listed Steves being biologists.[3] The "List of Steves" webpage provides an updated total of scientist "Steves" who have signed the list.[4] As of February 10, 2020, Project Steve has 1,448 signatories.[4]

Very few members. I’m curious, how many have had articles published in peer-reviewed journal? The Wikipedia entry doesn’t list any.

 

[Job 33:6]

Key Word is ACCEPT! Not proven as is what Science seeks to do. Or verify if one wishes to be more specific!

Truth and fact is not established by polls or statistics or even a majority.

Well of course you and I both know that nothing is ever proven in science with respect to theories. Even the theory of plate tectonics is not proven (as obvious as it is to be true).

 

[Archivist]

As are 75% of professors! He has held full time professorships at many schools in the past, but as of late takes the pat time teaching tracks. That does not make His works erroneous, just his teaching career changed of his own desire!

Perhaps things are different in Australia. In the US adjuncts are not that highly regarded. Too bad because I’ve known some good ones, but I’ve also known lots who are not that good.

 

[Job 33:6]

Very few members. I’m curious, how many have had articles published in peer-reviewed journal? The Wikipedia entry doesn’t list any.

1,400 scientists, all named Steve, isn't a small number, especially in comparison to Creationists full lists which perhaps consist of just 3 or 4 biologists of all names (maybe more).

When it comes to quantities of peer reviewed articles it would be an even worse comparison. Articles are published every month in support of biological evolution. Perhaps weekly even.