Do you agree?

[Beowulf]

... And accept his son's death and ressurection for our sins, which is more important than the creationist and evolution debate.

Yes, I can agree with that but to a point.
The LDS church advocates the same thing to support their argument that they too are christians. They cite the love for Christ, walking in His ways and doing "godly things". I can't count how many times I've heard from mormon missionaries, temple workers, priests and elders.. "Why can't we join forces? We both believe the love Jesus has for us and that we love Him also."
I'm not saying that a christian who believes another form of Genesis isn't a christian but we really must be careful when citing the love of Jesus as a common denominator. All I'm asking for is a little bit of caution be used when using it. Even the Jehovah Witness has said the same thing to me at one time or another.

 

[meebs]

so you saying im wrong, look, i just beleive in a scientific theory, i love God and i do want to spread Gods word, i dont beleive in mormonism or others im just simply a christian. i just follow jesus.

 

[Beowulf]

I didn't say you were wrong.
"All I'm asking for is a little bit of caution be used when using it"

 

[herev]

My neighbor is an evolutions and a Christian. She claims that while she believes God COULD have created the Earth in 6 literal 24 hour days, He didn't because of the evidence she has seen. I'm curious if other theistic evolutionist believe that. Was God capable of creating the Earth is 6 days but chose to go a different route?

sure, we see it that creationists limit God saying that 6 days is the only way he could have done it. We, on the other hand, think he could have done it in 6 days, 6 hours, 6 minutes, 6 nano-seconds. He is the author of life, he cannot be restricted to a certain method

 

[meebs]

I didn't say you were wrong.
"All I'm asking for is a little bit of caution be used when using it"

Definatly will!! i mean in the christian context of course

it bugs me too, i definatly know where i stand and i just dont beleive or do what the other religions do, we just cant mix, like crude oil and water

 

[TwinCrier]

Personally, I don't believe God created anything with the 'appearance of great age.' I simply think science has misinterpreted what God has created as being old. "This bone is a dinosaur, therefore it must be millions of years old and carbon dating will prove it and if you believe differently you are a fool." I'm also not sure God could have done it any faster. he seemed pretty worn out after working 6 straight days.

 

[Beowulf]

Definatly will!! i mean in the christian context of course

it bugs me too, i definatly know where i stand and i just dont beleive or do what the other religions do, we just cant mix, like crude oil and water

Absolutely!
Making statements here can help execise good habits of phrase. When evangelizing out there people can twist things or get a wrong idea of what's said. In a christian forum we can learn how we say things, hone good habits of speech, phrasing and intent, before we go out there among those that are not christian, where a mistake of phrase is not forgiven so easily.

You brought up a good point, but I think you can understand why I'm very sensitive to how it's said. I'm just passing on a little thought or experience that I had to learn the hard way.

 

[Beowulf]

he seemed pretty worn out after working 6 straight days.

LOL!!
I've never heard it put quite that way.
I know you're just kidding around and I thought it funny.

 

[herev]

Why would God take the long way around to complete His work?

I dunno

I don't know why He created mosquitos, either, but I believe He did both

"In the beginning God created..." and I believe that. Jesus fed the multitudes from just a couple of fish and I believe that.

Beowulf, please understand that TE's believe both of these two statements as well.

 

[Beowulf]

Gen 1:12-13
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Gen 1:16-19
|v16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
|v17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
|v18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
|v19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Genesis says God made the plants first then the next day made the sun and moon.
No matter how it's read, literal or not, Genesis conveys the message that plants were here before the sun.

Is this correct?
I can say a solid "yes" without condition.

 

[herev]

Gen 1:12-13
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Gen 1:16-19
|v16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
|v17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
|v18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
|v19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Genesis says God made the plants first then the next day made the sun and moon.
No matter how it's read, literal or not, Genesis conveys the message that plants were here before the sun.

Is this correct?
I can say a solid "yes" without condition.

ok, I don't understand what you are saying in context of this thread, what do you mean . Sorry to be thick.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Gen 1:12-13
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Gen 1:16-19
|v16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
|v17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
|v18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
|v19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Genesis says God made the plants first then the next day made the sun and moon.
No matter how it's read, literal or not, Genesis conveys the message that plants were here before the sun.
Is this correct?
I can say a solid "yes" without condition.

I'm not sure what your point is, or who you're talking to. This goes along with the old observation:

Forming days
1. light
2. water below and above "the expanse"
3. dry ground and vegetation

Filling days
4. sun, moon, and stars
5. everything in the water and sky
6. land creatures, man, every green plant for food

 

[Beowulf]

ok, I don't understand what you are saying in context of this thread, what do you mean . Sorry to be thick.

Sorry for not being clear

Can it be believed that the grass, herbs and trees, already yielding fruit created on the third day came before the sun was created on the fourth day? It's quite apparent He meant the fourth day follows the third day.

No matter how it's read, either literally or taken as just a story, do you believe the message contained within these verses, plants before the sun, is correct or is it wrong?

 

[herev]

Sorry for not being clear

Can it be believed that the grass, herbs and trees, already yielding fruit created on the third day came before the sun was created on the fourth day? It's quite apparent He meant the fourth day follows the third day.

No matter how it's read, either literally or taken as just a story, do you believe the message contained within these verses, plants before the sun, is correct or is it wrong?

I guess there are a number of ways to answer, let me state two of them.
1st, if I were a literalist, I would say that God created the light on the second day. It was on the fourth day that God separated the lights to day and night lights, sun and moon, so I would not see the message contained within (even as a literalist) as you have presented. The light necessary for growth of plants, etc, would have been present from day 2. But since I'm not a literalists:
2nd, I would say that trying to break apart the first Genesis account to look for individual "truths" dealing with sequence of events in creation is futile. The truths as TE's see it are taken from the creation accounts as individual whole stories or as combined stories, but not trying to determine what was created in what sequence, so again, I wouldn't see the message contained within the same as you.
Sorry, that probably wasn't what you wanted to hear

 

[meebs]

Absolutely!
Making statements here can help execise good habits of phrase. When evangelizing out there people can twist things or get a wrong idea of what's said. In a christian forum we can learn how we say things, hone good habits of speech, phrasing and intent, before we go out there among those that are not christian, where a mistake of phrase is not forgiven so easily.

You brought up a good point, but I think you can understand why I'm very sensitive to how it's said. I'm just passing on a little thought or experience that I had to learn the hard way.

im hoping so, i'd love to bring someone to God!!

Keep up the good work

 

[Beowulf]

Sorry, that probably wasn't what you wanted to hear

No, actually your answer is exactly as I had expected.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

TwinCrier:

How many times have we TEs posted that we believe God could have created any way he wanted? How many times have we countered people thinking we think God couldn't create in six days. And yet, again, we are asked as if it's surprising.

Could God have created the earth in 6 literal days and then scientists extremely intent on disproving his existence forged and faked "evidence" to make it look like evolution occured? OF COURSE!!!! (And I believe this is what happened).

John Jones - you are making a serious (and scurrilous) accusation against scientists here. If you cannot provide evidence (and you can't because it's an evil and low lie you are telling) then retract and apologise. I mean it. You are bearing false witness against thousands of honest scientists and it's absolutely disgusting that a Christian should do so. I'm sick of these wicked allegations from creationists, really I am.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Sorry for not being clear

Can it be believed that the grass, herbs and trees, already yielding fruit created on the third day came before the sun was created on the fourth day? It's quite apparent He meant the fourth day follows the third day.

No matter how it's read, either literally or taken as just a story, do you believe the message contained within these verses, plants before the sun, is correct or is it wrong?

Assuming the days represent a form of chronology is just that - an assumption. I demonstrate here - http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm - that there is a symbolic meaning to the days, and I personally do not see a need to invoke a chronological meaning as well.

 

[herev]

No, actually your answer is exactly as I had expected.

OK, and?

 

[Beowulf]

A TE can not answer the question with a yes or no. To say "yes" goes against evolution (plants before the sun). On the other hand a "no" is too uncomfortable and must have conditions. Therefore there must be a compromise between evolution and scripture. The idea of evolution will not be compromised, it must be upheld at all costs. Still, there has to be a compromise and it's scripture that will take the hit.

I'm sure of my answer.
An unconditional "Yes".

Therein lies the rub mixing Darwin with the bible.