Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
By 'meaningfully true' I mean looking at the stories of the Bible and taking the meaning behind the stories, rather than the stories themselves. For example instead of believing that Adam and Eve literally ate the forbidden fruit, you would take the meaning behind the story, that we are all sinners.
Thanks for replying!
What he said.I do not believe much if anything of what's in Genesis is literal. I do believe God created the universe; I just believe that God appears to have taken the scenic route.
I see no contradiction between science and the Bible on this issue, because I do not believe the creation story in Genesis is meant to be taken literally.
Clearly untrue.Show me a Christian that does not believe in creation and I'll show you a person who either has not properly studied the bible.
A completely unfounded assumption.The bible is meant to be taken literally, except when the bible (itself) indicates that the issue is a "sign" or "wonder".
Untrue.The laws of physics are great, in so far as they go.
For example, show me the law of physics that allows something to spring into existence from nothing.
Believing that something sprang into existence from nothing is necessary to believe in evolution.
Christian evolutionists do - God.The evolutionists have no explanation as to how the universe, earth, people, etc all came into existence.
I'm not sure those categories are opposites.Hi, i just want to know how many of you here are Creationists (by which i include evangelicals, fundamentalists, biblical literlalists and so on) and how many of you are more liberal 'modern' christians (such as people who accept scientific descoveries even if it contradicts the bible).
Believing that something sprang into existence from nothing is necessary to believe in evolution.
As a Christian, I believe that God created the universe and all that is in it by the mere utterance of his word, as he has told us in His Word. I find it no more difficult to believe that he created it in six days, as he also said in His Word. One concept is no more difficult to adhere to than the other.
When relating science to the Bible, I see no contradictions. What I see is the limitation of science. Where current scientific thought appears to diverge from the Bible, I remember that science consists of observation of natural phenomena and interpretation of what is observed. As science is a human endeavor, it is possible for the mechanics of observation to be flawed, and even more likely for the interpretation to be flawed. In light of these flaws, as new observations are made, new interpretations must be proposed. Some build upon what we already have, some tear down what we have. Science by it's nature is fluid and ever changing. God's Word, however is not. It has remained constant for thousands of years. As long as we realize this, we can adjust to the fact that science has not yet caught up to the Bible and what God has stated in His Word.
Because it's not the "straignt forward reading of scripture (TM)" that you claim it to be; it's a product of a post-enlightenment thinking that would be completely alien to those who wrote the text in the first place.Very well said.There's also the miracle factor. Why christians allow science to undermine a straight forward reading of scripture is beyond me.
Because it's not the "straignt forward reading of scripture (TM)" that you claim it to be; it's a product of a post-enlightenment thinking that would be completely alien to those who wrote the text in the first place.
Genesis 2:19-20 (New International Version)
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
------------------------------------------------------
If one thinks that the first few chapters of Genesis are to be understood as literal, I wonder if they understand that they must maintain that the T-Rex, Raptor, etc., were also named by Adam then.
I'm not sure how one could be certain exactly how Augustine (or anyone else) understood Genesis. Such arguments usually take the form of "so and so said such and such, and that's consistant with what I believe, therefore they believed the same as me", ignoring the fact that the quote is also consistant with a range of other beliefs. What we can be certain of is that Augustine did not read it in a post-enlightenment way. Of course, Augustine's understanding is also a product of his time and context. Ancient people's did not have genre resembling modern history, so to treat Genesis as such is clearly not a "plain reading of the text".I'm afraid you're a victim of propaganda, ebia. I know there's some material out there claiming YEC is a new invention. It's been thoroughly discredited. Even allegory prone Augustine, the favorite ECF for TEs to quote, was a staunch young earther and believed Genesis to be historical narrative.
I'm not sure how one could be certain exactly how Augustine (or anyone else) understood Genesis.
Such arguments usually take the form of "so and so said such and such, and that's consistent with what I believe, therefore they believed the same as me",
ignoring the fact that the quote is also consistent with a range of other beliefs. What we can be certain of is that Augustine did not read it in a post-enlightenment way.
Of course, Augustine's understanding is also a product of his time and context.
Ancient people's did not have genre resembling modern history, so to treat Genesis as such is clearly not a "plain reading of the text".
But this is all off topic - the OP asked what people believed, it didn't ask for a debate so I better stop.
Not just present, but is the Word through which creation happens.I think it can be agree upon by most of us that Jesus was present at the creation,
Clearly true.And since the Jews of Jesus time on earth held the books of Moses in great reverence
not clearly true.and believed them to be the literal words of God,
Sorry - this doesn't follow at all. You are assuming that they treated Genesis is a literal-historical account, but that is highly unlikely. You are putting back your cultural assumptions upon them. The people of Jesus' time and before would be quite at home with mythology being as true (if not truer) than fact.it must be assumed that they believed in the literal interpretation of the creation account
See above, but also because he came to teach us about God and our relationship to him, not to teach history and science.and taught the same in their Temple and synagogues. So the question arises: Why did Jesus, who corrected and amended more than a few of the common interpretations of their Scriptures, not see fit to "set the record straight" if a literal interpretation of the creation account was incorrect?
A big IF - there is no evidence that the people of his time would even have understood what you meant by 'a literal interpretation of the creation account'.If Jesus had no problem with a literal interpretation of the creation account,
hA big IF - there is no evidence that the people of his time would even have understood what you meant by 'a literal interpretation of the creation account'.
So you can't tell the difference in genre between Genesis and my posts on this thread? That would explain a lot.Hmmm. This is starting to make sense. In fact I see no evidence you are speaking literally. It's just not there. Can someone please show me the evidence if I'm wrong? It's very unlikely you are a TE. Only a blind literalist would believe something so narrow minded.
Well, he did write a book about it.I'm not sure how one could be certain exactly how Augustine (or anyone else) understood Genesis.
We see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun; but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness, and called the light Day, and the darkness Night; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was, and yet must unhesitatingly believe it. For either it was some material light, whether proceeding from the upper parts of the world, far removed from our sight, or from the spot where the sun was afterwards kindled; or under the name of light the holy city was signified, composed of holy angels and blessed spirits, the city of which the apostle says, “Jerusalem which is above is our eternal mother in heaven;”{Gal. iv. 26.} and in another place, “For ye are all the children of the light, and the children of the day; we are not of the night, nor of darkness.”{ 1 Thess. v. 5.} Yet in some respects we may appropriately speak of a morning and evening of this day also. For the knowledge of the creature is, in comparison of the knowledge of the Creator, but a twilight; and so it dawns and breaks into morning when the creature is drawn to the praise and love of the Creator; and night never falls when the Creator is not forsaken through love of the creature. In fine, Scripture, when it would recount those days in order, never mentions the word night. It never says, “Night was,” but “The evening and the morning were the first day.” So of the second and the rest. And, indeed, the knowledge of created things contemplated by themselves is, so to speak, more colorless than when they are seen in the wisdom of God, as in the art by which they were made. Therefore evening is a more suitable figure than night; and yet, as I said, morning returns when the creature returns to the praise and love of the Creator. When it does so in the knowledge of itself, that is the first day; when in the knowledge of the firmament, which is the name given to the sky between the waters above and those beneath, that is the second day; when in the knowledge of the earth, and the sea, and all things that grow out of the earth, that is the third day; when in the knowledge of the greater and less luminaries, and all the stars, that is the fourth day; when in the knowledge of all animals that swim in the waters and that fly in the air, that is the fifth day; when in the knowledge of all animals that live on the earth, and of man himself, that is the sixth day.
Well, he did write a book about it.
I wouldn't say it takes a standard YEC line, though -- Augustine tends to allegory. In City of God he says:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?