But exodus 19:4 is an obvious metaphor cause it's contradicted by the read sea crossing.
Interesting, you have to search for other passages in scripture that contradict the literal meaning of Exodus 19:4 to show it is a metaphor. In fact, looking at the text itself it appears as though it was meant completely literally. Not only does God say the Israelites were were carried out of Egypt on eagle's wings, but God claim the Israelites were witnesses to this great event Exodus 19:4
You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.
The text appears solidly literal and there is nothing in the text itself that even hints it is a metaphor, yet it is one. So clearly you can have passages in scripture even spoke directly by God to Moses where God speaks in metaphor where there is nothing in the words themselves that tell us. Shouldn't we be on the lookout for this possibility?
The creation event is not challenged by anything in the bible. It is told as if it was meant to be literal.
So was Exodus 19:4. It is interesting how your evidence that Exodus 19:4 is a metaphor is the contradiction with other accounts of crossing the Red Sea, I would consider the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as evidence they were metaphors too. The completely different order of creation in the two accounts, the completely different settings for creation, one a watery chaos the other a barren wilderness. Even the reasons given for the lack of plants in Genesis two (there was no rain and no man to till the ground) does not fit Genesis 1 where on the day God created plants the land had been submerged under water that very morning, were there wouldn't have been time for plants to grow even if it had rained so a lack of rain wasn't the reason for there being no plants, and there was no man to till the ground until three days after all the plants had been created.
Now creationist go to great lengths trying to rearrange these two account to try to make them fit. But wouldn't it make much more sense to treat these two accounts the way you deal with Exodus 19:4 and realise the simple answer is that one or both of the Creation accounts is metaphorical?
Exodus 19:4 isn't cause it's just to remind the Hebrews that he got them out but it's not HOW HE GOT THEM OUT.
I think you have the key to understanding the creation accounts here too. It is to tell us God is the creator of everything not HOW HE CREATED IT. The metaphor of the eagles wings also shows us God care and love in rescuing the Israelites and his purpose in doing it Exodus 19:4
...and brought you to myself. It is the same with the creation accounts they show how the creator of all, made mankind to know him and fellowship with him.
The creation event contradicts evolution too much for it to be a metaphor
I can see how an interpretation being contradicted by science can be evidence it isn't literal, but I don't follow the argument that says because your literal interpretation contradicts science it means it can't be a metaphor. Should Catholics argue that because "This is my body" contradicts everything we know about the nature of matter, atomic physics and chemistry, then it cannot be a metaphor? Should geocentrists insist because a literal interpretation of the Joshua miracle contradicts heliocentric astronomy it must be literal too and the sun really did stop moving for a day? I am afraid that your argument simply does not follow. What it show instead is simply a deep seated emotional attachment to the literal interpretation of Genesis
because it contradicts evolution. But Creationists' dislike of evolution is hardly evidence, either for a literal interpretation of Genesis or against evolution.
and since evolution is not in the bible then the event is unchallenged. Evolution is not in the bible so it is outside God.
There are loads of things in the universe not mentioned in the bible, the DNA double helix, the force of gravity making the planets orbit the sun, electromagnetism, atoms, nuclear fission, penguins, Antarctica, Australia. But just because there aren't mentioned in the bible doesn't mean they aren't real or that God didn't created them.
I feel like I was speaking for the 5% and 44% if anything.
Do you have any proof the creation event is a metaphor?
The creation isn't a metaphor it is very very real, otherwise God isn't really the creator of everything. It is the accounts of the creation that are metaphorical, just as the Israelites being freed from slavery in Egypt is real, while the description of their deliverance in Exodus 19:4 is metaphorical
Where in the bible does he mention evolution?
Where does the bible mention the earth is an oblate spheroid or orbits the sun?
If evolution was true, God wouldn't have written the entire book of genesis which pretty much kicks evolution out the door.
It is just your interpretation of the first two chapters that is contradicted by science. But that doesn't mean your interpretation or the implications you draw from it are what God was actually saying.
I think your the one whose is falsely speaking for God. Please give me a verse where God says "oh sorry those were just metaphors". Doesn't Jesus himself speak for these events even?
Jesus never apologised for his metaphors and parables even when people misunderstood them. Why should he? We are his disciples, his pupils, we are supposed to learn from him, not expect him to apologise every time we misunderstand the word of God.
What metaphors do you have for the creation event
Sorry, I have no idea what this means.
Oh I think the flood was real, just not global. That is an idea people read into the text, not something the bible actually says. But this is probably an issue best addressed in a separate thread.
If people start turning such an important event of the bible into metaphors, what's gonna happen when they start calling the messiah's miracles metaphors?
If you have already dismissed the wonderful giant eagles miracle as a metaphor, aren't you on this slippery slope already? The fact is, you already agree the bible contains both literal miracles and metaphors. Any interpretation other than the hyper literalist will happily reconcile both literal and metaphor in the bible see no reason to believe that the existence of some metaphors in the bible means everything must be metaphorical.
It's strange to not believe in the creation event or the global flood because they're farfetched but believe a man can rise from the dead after 3 days or turn water to wine. It makes us look like nitpickers who contradict ourselves.
I always find it odd when Creationists share the same theological views as Richard Dawkins. If the resurrection or turning to wine seem far fetched isn't it because these are things which do not happen naturally? Isn't believing that these miracles based on faith that God can do things that do not happen naturally, that God did things by his almighty power that do happen by themselves?
Rejecting the literal interpretation of Genesis is not about what God could or couldn't do, but about evidence of what actually happened, evidence the earth is billions of years old and life evolved. I think TEs are much closer to the faith of the disciples here than creationists. Would John have believed the man born blind was miraculously healed if he kept walking into doors? Would Peter and John have believed in the resurrection if they had run to the tomb and found the dead body of a man who looked just like Jesus? Faith is believing God has done things that do not happen naturally, it is not about believing in things the evidence shows us didn't happened.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,
APES ARE NOT IN HIS OWN IMAGE
Neither is mud, yet you have no problem believing God made man in his image from a lump of clay.
God wouldn't allow the fact that he is God get in the way of his love for us. I'm the toddler? I believe in metaphors in the bible but you're talking about evolution which is something that goes against the whole bible. Also what makes you think that Gods common language was speaking in metaphors?
No I just believe God often spoke in metaphors, so interpretations that treat Genesis as though God could only speak literally are based on a misunderstanding of who God is and how he speak to us. They treat God as though he were a toddler or autistic and couldn't possibly be speaking in metaphor. Stranger still these interpretation ignore all the metaphors and parables they see God speaking throughout the bible
Apes are not man. It seems like he was pretty clear about that.
[sign]citation needed[/sign]
If genesis is a metaphor, then why would God write it as if it was literal?
You mean like Exodus 19:4?
Did we also forget that the bible was written 2000 years ago(a time when a literal interpretation was common)? The bible was written for them too and they probably didn't even know what a metaphor was. You act as I'm ignorant about this.
2000 years ago you had Philo of Alexandria interpreting Genesis allegorically, so no, people back then did understand metaphors and allegory. The scribe and chief priests understood the parable of the vineyard well enough (Mark 12:12 & Luke 20:19). People's problem with Jesus was not that the couldn't understand metaphors, but that they didn't always recognise when Jesus was speaking that way, or if they did, they didn't understand what the metaphor or parable meant.
Go back further and people didn't know the Greek term metaphor, but they did know how to use them Gen 49:27
"Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil." Or read the story of the talking trees in Judges 9. People back then communicated quite freely in parables and metaphors, without feeling any need to attach the label metaphor to their statement (or 'riddle' and 'dark saying' as they were described back then).
I've thought this through. As long as there are men of science who believe in young creation(which there are and they're probably smarter than most atheists and everyone in this thread) and as long as there is proof against evolution(which there is) then I have no reason to believe it.
Should the church have waited until the last astronomer had abandoned geocentism before looking for better ways to interpret the geocentric passages? Or would the church have simply made itself look idiotic teaching the sun went round the earth until science made the case for heliocentrism watertight, which didn't really happen until sputnik and the interplanetary space probes showed gravity really did operate in space as Newton's law of gravity claimed?
What will happen when science starts saying that we should believe in natural selection or tells us morality is just an illusion?
Surely what evolution shows is how morality evolved, not that it is an illusion or that it isn't how God made man in his image?
Yes we should trust and believe him. So why don't we trust and believe him when he says the creation event is true instead of assuming he meant it as a metaphor?
[sign]citation needed[/sign]
His love comes before his power. Which means his love and care comes before his "vast intelligence" that according to you, is supposed to make him speak in metaphors.
Sorry I don't see the contradiction between God's love and intelligence. You are not denying God's intelligence are you? I even quoted you that passage in Isaiah where God tells us he is more intelligent than us. His intelligence doesn't mean he has to speak in metaphors, it just show the foolishness of limiting him to the literalist language development level of a toddler.
Believing in evolution to impress man won't help when you're dead.
No that is Christ's death and resurrection are for. You don't think you need to be a creationist to be saved do you? Wouldn't that be adding to the gospel?
If God is so intelligent in a way we can't imagine then why do we try to dumb him down by saying we should go with science and pathetic human logic BEFORE HIS OWN WORD. It's the one word of God we have and we turned our backs on it to impress "human" society.
You mean literalism isn't 'pathetic human logic'? It is how you read the book of Genesis so it couldn't possibly be wrong? The thread title says "Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Evolution" it isn't about the requirement for salvation, but it is about the demands the new birth and being a disciple of Jesus put on our lives, which include honesty, integrity and the humility to recognise when we got things wrong, to admit we can get things wrong. The scientific evidence supports evolution so for Christian approaching the evidence with integrity means we need to admit we got it wrong, just as previous generations had to admit their geocentric interpretations missed the point.
I do however believe the earth is older than 6000 yr. The bible never says its age and I think the gap in the bible is bigger than 6000 yr. But it's definitely not 4.5 billion years old.
You don't take the six day creation literally? But if you don't take the days literally, how can you possibly claim the earth isn't 4.5 billion years old? Or how can you claim Genesis can't be speaking metaphorically?