Does believing Genesis is wrong make me a bad Christian?

[Job 33:6]

You believe the Big Bang was initiated by God. We agree about this.


Common descent is an effect of speciation, in which multiple species derive from a single ancestral population. I believe one species can evolve from another species. Humans even share 60% of their DNA with corn. But I doubt the evidence that one family can evolve into another family without God's creative design. I think interbreeding experiments are informative and there is a distinction between producing a sterile offspring and producing an offspring that can mate successfully.

The point of Brightmoons response to number 1 was to point out that the big bang is a concept of astronomy and is an independent field that is separate from the theory of evolution. So it doesn't make sense to talk about objections to evolution and then to randomly bring up the big bang.

It's like saying that I have objections to calculus, then I randomly start talking about real estate. Your number 1 just didn't make sense.

 

[Brightmoon]

No, not believing Genesis doesn't make you a bad Christian, at all, it just makes you someone who doesn't believe the word of God, period.

. There are plenty of Christians who don’t believe Genesis to be an accurate literal HISTORY . As a religious belief they have no trouble accepting a poetic description of how God created the universe. You need to stop misjudging and maligning fellow Christians

 

[hedrick]

. There are plenty of Christians who don’t believe Genesis to be an accurate literal HISTORY . As a religious belief they have no trouble accepting a poetic description of how God created the universe. You need to stop misjudging and maligning fellow Christians

True. But many of them actually don't believe that the Bible is the word of God in the sense that Religiot means. That doesn't make them non-Christians, but it makes them non-conservatives. Of course there are also conservatives who adopt creative interpretations of Gen 1 to reconcile it with science.

 

[hedrick]

I’ve been reading about the history of interpretation of Scripture, to see where this view that the Bible is God’s words came from.

My most recent source is Micahel Graves, the Inspiration and Interpretation of Scripture, but this not my own source. Gravesd quotes many Fathers as saying that the Bible is the oracles of God, true in all details. However those statements coexisted with accepting that some statements about history didn’t actually happen. The way this seems to have worked is that passages that couldn’t have happened, or that had immoral implications, were taken allegorically. Some interpreters objected to this, saying that whatever allegorical meaning you might see, the literal meaning had to be true. But this didn’t seem to be the predominant view.

The Reformation took over the concept of the Bible as completely true. In Luther’s early debates, pretty much all the gatherings he debated in front of agreed to use Scripture to decide. The authority of Scripture isn’t something the Reformers invented (though setting it against Tradition was new).

But the Reformers were inclined to dismiss the allegorical sense except for passages that were obviously intended by the author to be allegorical. They adopted what we’d call today the plain sense, i.e. the sense intended by the authors. Nevertheless, Calvin (who was clearly the best 16th Cent Biblical expositor) took some liberties with literal accuracy. He said that some details of the creation accounts described things as people saw them, not as astronomers knew them to be. He understood the Sermon on the Mount as a summary of Jesus’ teaching, constructed by Matthew from what were originally separate teachings. He wasn’t bothered by minor disagreements between Chronicles and the other narratives. So his idea that the Bible was the “oracles of God,” directly from God, did permit some critical analysis. (Certainly not as much as we’d use today, though.) As far as I know, he never dealt with this explicitly. He made statements that sound like inerrancy, but in a few cases his exegesis didn’t work that way.

I believe that things changed slightly in the 16th and 17th Cent. Catholics said that sola scriptura makes no sense, because Protestants can’t agree what the Bible means. One response was based on the hope that if you were literal enough, everyone could agree. I think modern inerrancy comes from that. Of course it doesn’t work, because Scripture is quite diverse. On most major theological questions you can find passages that point in both directions. How you put them together depends upon your overall conclusions about what is being taught. Assuming that overall concept is developed by your church as a body, rather than each individual working independently, we have Scriptural interpretation controlled by tradition, which is what Protestants claimed they were trying to avoid. There may be no alternative. That doesn't mean that all traditions are equal, or that it's invalid to say that a specific tradition gets its key Scriptural support from misinterpreted Scripture.

 

[Brightmoon]

I think that’s the reason I prefer mainstream science. It, at least, makes coherent sense. If it doesn’t make sense, it just means you’ve got missing data ( like the physics TOE). I don’t expect my religious beliefs to make coherent sense. As I’ve stated before , to me, religion and science are oil and water. The only time I disagree with dogmas is if they cause serious harm like the one about murdering gays or telling people that they have to stay with abusive spouses.

 

[NBB]

. I’m not an Intelligent Design advocate as I thinks it’s pseudoscience and doesn’t belong in science. as a Christian I believe that God created the universe. As someone scientifically literate, Intelligent Design is pseudoscience and has about as much validity as astrology. I guess I think of religion and science as oil and water. They don’t mix

What do you mean they don't mix? God created science.

 

[Stephen P]

Actually that little program is directed in what to choose, i throw a random letter in there and select it, too easy, that is deceiving, evolution can't choose it has to build from zero.

Sorry, to go back to this NBB.
I didn't explain my thought very well.
To me, Dawkins program showed both Random natural Selection (when he first generated the bat shape in his lab) and God driven natural selection (when Dawkins re-plugged in the numbers to re-create the bat).

Evolution is random selection, from a selection of outcomes. (8 outcomes for eg.)
The random selection is based of predation, and environment. ie a glowing yellow moth is not going to last long, neither is an animal that has no hair going to survive in freezing conditions.
HOWEVER, a mutation of hair even small will allow an animal to survive barely more than a hairless animal.
Example 2: 1 single especially freezing day in a standard farm may kill x number of young lambs, leaving ones that were better adapted to the cold to reproduce the next generation.
Enough for it to produce more offspring than the hairless animal, so now for e.g. there are 10 baby animals in the freezing conditions and 7 of the 10 now have a bit of hair, which assists in the environmental survival issue and they have more chance or producing more.
Having hair turn the same color as the freezing conditions eg white starts to take care of the predation issue.
Correct. Evolution is not choosing.
Someone could probably create a mathematical equation for evolution. (Better then Dawkins equation at least. )

I'm saying that God's Evolution is choice based from that same selection of outcomes. (8 outcomes)
So, in the above case, God could have a predator come thru and kill all the hairless animals and leave the hairy ones, or have 12 days of bad weather in a row wipe out the entire flock of hairless young lambs.

To me, in the case of Human / Biblical Evolution; God choosing Joseph out of the 12 brothers, is the same process as the above Dawkins presentation setup which is; God driven natural selection:

To be truly using natural selection, God could have chosen an environmental issue like a gang of thieves killing all the brothers except Joseph, because he was way away in the fields with his sheep.
There's probably a few examples of this in the Bible. Wars that weakened or strengthened a tribe. Telling Israel to save several tribes in the Canaanite invasion.

Hope this helps explain my thoughts better?
Cheers
Stephen

 

[Brightmoon]

What do you mean they don't mix? God created science.

. Humans originally created science to figure out and celebrate natural phenomena. Science was originally called natural theology. Science works because God created nature and nature doesn’t lie. If nature lied we’d never be able to figure out what was going on. Creationists seem to assume that nature lies arbitrarily and their pseudoscience nonsense that they use instead of science reflects this

 

[NBB]

. Humans originally created science to figure out and celebrate natural phenomena. Science was originally called natural theology. Science works because God created nature and nature doesn’t lie. If nature lied we’d never be able to figure out what was going on. Creationists seem to assume that nature lies arbitrarily and their pseudoscience nonsense that they use instead of science reflects this

You are 'charging' me with pseudoscience and stuff, and the only thing i did was to believe God made nature the exact way he planned, designed it.

 

[NBB]

Sorry, to go back to this NBB.
I didn't explain my thought very well.
To me, Dawkins program showed both Random natural Selection (when he first generated the bat shape in his lab) and God driven natural selection (when Dawkins re-plugged in the numbers to re-create the bat).

Evolution is random selection, from a selection of outcomes. (8 outcomes for eg.)
The random selection is based of predation, and environment. ie a glowing yellow moth is not going to last long, neither is an animal that has no hair going to survive in freezing conditions.
HOWEVER, a mutation of hair even small will allow an animal to survive barely more than a hairless animal.
Example 2: 1 single especially freezing day in a standard farm may kill x number of young lambs, leaving ones that were better adapted to the cold to reproduce the next generation.
Enough for it to produce more offspring than the hairless animal, so now for e.g. there are 10 baby animals in the freezing conditions and 7 of the 10 now have a bit of hair, which assists in the environmental survival issue and they have more chance or producing more.
Having hair turn the same color as the freezing conditions eg white starts to take care of the predation issue.
Correct. Evolution is not choosing.
Someone could probably create a mathematical equation for evolution. (Better then Dawkins equation at least. )

I'm saying that God's Evolution is choice based from that same selection of outcomes. (8 outcomes)
So, in the above case, God could have a predator come thru and kill all the hairless animals and leave the hairy ones, or have 12 days of bad weather in a row wipe out the entire flock of hairless young lambs.

To me, in the case of Human / Biblical Evolution; God choosing Joseph out of the 12 brothers, is the same process as the above Dawkins presentation setup which is; God driven natural selection:

To be truly using natural selection, God could have chosen an environmental issue like a gang of thieves killing all the brothers except Joseph, because he was way away in the fields with his sheep.
There's probably a few examples of this in the Bible. Wars that weakened or strengthened a tribe. Telling Israel to save several tribes in the Canaanite invasion.

Hope this helps explain my thoughts better?
Cheers
Stephen

I believe God had in mind what animals would look like, there may be things 'evolution' does to living beings, but God designed for me nature, he knew how they would be and made it happen.

 

[NBB]

. Humans originally created science to figure out and celebrate natural phenomena. Science was originally called natural theology. Science works because God created nature and nature doesn’t lie. If nature lied we’d never be able to figure out what was going on. Creationists seem to assume that nature lies arbitrarily and their pseudoscience nonsense that they use instead of science reflects this

Also, intelligent design is not pseudoscience, its just saying someone 'intelligent' (like God) created nature the way he wanted, silly me for believing God designed nature, also evolution can't build a brain, it was designed by God, but like i said this world rejects God, they need another explanation you may want to remember this when listening to them.

 

[Stephen P]

I believe God had in mind what animals would look like, there may be things 'evolution' does to living beings, but God designed for me nature, he knew how they would be and made it happen.

Yep I believe exactly the same thing, but that small difference that God used evolution like building Lego, to achieve the goal, God Cannot do any creation: that was completed at Day 6.5 so He cannot go I'll create a dog *boing!*
I'm trying to think of real life comparisons. um.. the Glue is already created, the Plastic parts are already created and formed; We do not create, but we Build a model aeroplane. God finished creation so He builds using the building blocks (DNA) that he created.
s.

 

[Stephen P]

Also, intelligent design is not pseudoscience, its just saying someone 'intelligent' (like God) created nature the way he wanted, silly me for believing God designed nature, also evolution can't build a brain, it was designed by God, but like i said this world rejects God, they need another explanation you may want to remember this when listening to them.

Think of this: if God could *Boing* anything into existence, Why did God bother to create DNA which is existing [Edit: in EXACTLY the same form in ] ALL living animals?

God has set a rule that DNA is to be used to further development of all animals.
That rule was set at Creation.

 

[Stephen P]

. Humans originally created science to figure out and celebrate natural phenomena. Science was originally called natural theology. Science works because God created nature and nature doesn’t lie. If nature lied we’d never be able to figure out what was going on. Creationists seem to assume that nature lies arbitrarily and their pseudoscience nonsense that they use instead of science reflects this

Agree.
Some Creationists go,
"It doesn't matter that nothing can be proved, In the Bible God said in Genesis that He created it and that's it."
So why does Genesis go into detail about meeting animals, Eden, The Fall, Death, ChildBirth pains, Farming woes etc etc if there is not a way to prove that this happened?
"Oh you must use Faith and believe that it happened."
This is the Classic, OK if you question the Bible you're not Christian thing isn't it?

By the Way, Brightmoon, i'm trying to pursue this in another Thread.
Biblical Creation from a scientific point of view

 

[Brightmoon]

You are 'charging' me with pseudoscience and stuff, and the only thing i did was to believe God made nature the exact way he planned, designed it.

. I agree but the way He “designed “ nature is how mainstream scientists say it is

 

[Stephen P]

Brightmoon, and NBB are either of you or both of you sort of a techie on the Planet Creation?
ie Do you know your Mantle from your Crust and know how many cubic miles of water is in the ocean?
Or do you know anyone that may be able to help me with my Flood theory..

I'm sort of OK with knowledge (think of a wall with a lot of holes in it.) but I need a lecturer type to clean up a theory.

Biblical Creation from a scientific point of view
Cheers
Stephen

 

[Brightmoon]

Brightmoon, and NBB are either of you or both of you sort of a techie on the Planet Creation?
ie Do you know your Mantle from your Crust and know how many cubic miles of water is in the ocean?
Or do you know anyone that may be able to help me with my Flood theory..

I'm sort of OK with knowledge (think of a wall with a lot of holes in it.) but I need a lecturer type to clean up a theory.

Biblical Creation from a scientific point of view
Cheers
Stephen

I’ve got a biology degree and I’ve taken some basic college level geology courses because I was fascinated with geology and paleontology as a child . So I’m familiar with both fields ,at least with geology , at a basic level. There’s no evidence for a global flood . There’s geological evidence for that bolide that wiped out the non avian dinosaurs 65million years ago so finding a global flood that happened only a few thousand years ago should be trivially easy .

 

[Andre_b]

. Humans originally created science to figure out and celebrate natural phenomena. Science was originally called natural theology. Science works because God created nature and nature doesn’t lie. If nature lied we’d never be able to figure out what was going on. Creationists seem to assume that nature lies arbitrarily and their pseudoscience nonsense that they use instead of science reflects this

Yes nature doesn't lie. Humans lie, including in science. That's the point, anything humans touch will get corrupted somehow even when many in opposition tries to refute the absurdity in evolution, people will still deny it because they are obsessed with "science", but the problem is the human aspect of science. Giving it the title "science" seems to make some people believe it's infallible...

 

[Brightmoon]

Yes nature doesn't lie. Humans lie, including in science. That's the point, anything humans touch will get corrupted somehow even when many in opposition tries to refute the absurdity in evolution, people will still deny it because they are obsessed with "science", but the problem is the human aspect of science. Giving it the title "science" seems to make some people believe it's infallible...

. Creationists lie . It’s hard for a scientist to lie because other scientists will call him or her out as soon as the work is published . Remember that English doctor who lied about vaccines causing autism in a formal research paper? How fast did he get kicked to the curb once it was discovered that he lied about his research. Especially if it’s in a prestigious journal. They might get away with sloppy work in a journal that nobody reads much . . But creationist papers get rejected because they’re going against ideas that have been confirmed independently and repeatedly for centuries in some cases .

 

[Andre_b]

. Creationists lie . It’s hard for a scientist to lie because other scientists will call him or her out as soon as the work is published . Remember that English doctor who lied about vaccines causing autism in a formal research paper? How fast did he get kicked to the curb once it was discovered that he lied about his research. Especially if it’s in a prestigious journal. They might get away with sloppy work in a journal that nobody reads much . . But creationist papers get rejected because they’re going against ideas that have been confirmed independently and repeatedly for centuries in some cases .

Exactly my point of what I told you. You believe science is infallible. For decades science was being used to promote cigarettes. They lied about sugar for decades because the industry would pay their own researchers to counter the scientific studies. Etc. Etc.