Does believing Genesis is wrong make me a bad Christian?

[coffee4u]

I believe in the bible, but i am not certain about this, it could be something else, like i said there was no sun so how there was evening and morning?... i take genesis seriously but i believe it seems the earth is old, however i don't think evolution is true, we are designed by God.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
There was evening and morning because God made a light shine on the turning earth. Maybe it was himself? Maybe just light from nowhere? Maybe it was the angels. Since God didn't tell us, then what it was is pure speculation. knowing what it was exactly is not something we need to know, just that it was.
That is how we get dawn and dusk, the sun shines and the earth turns. It doesn't have to be the sun though any light source large enough shining on the earth would do that.

I often wondered why didn't God make the sun first. One thought is that a lot of ancient people worshipped the sun, so maybe God wanted us to view it as being of less importance. If he made it first maybe people would think God needed the sun, that the sun was of more importance than him. Again this part is just speculation.

The earth got formed before the creation week. Time may not even have existed and if it didn't exist I doubt the rock can be dated at all.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
But even if God had created time, how long does it say it sat formless and empty for? It doesn't. This means it could have sat seconds or billions of years into infinity.
The ball of rock that is the earth does not have to be the same age as the creation that God made upon it. The earth may be both old and young.

Not all YEC are stuck on 6 thousand years. I can believe anywhere from 6 to 15 thousand although I tend more towards 10-12.

 

[NBB]

Well that's why we have surveys. Obviously the world's scientists named Steve aren't going to be tracked down across the planet. But surveys suggest somewhere around 97% accept evolution.

Which means that if 7.8 million scientists, perhaps only 250,000 might be creationists (assuming the world is comparable to america).

Also, the irony is that this list is still greater in number than creationists lists, despite only including people named Steve.

God created us, credit goes to him, if the theory of evolution were truth, it would not omit these big big detail, that things seems designed, not *apparently* designed, and that someone intervened to make nature happen. As christian, confess to me please, is God part in our making a bigger role than evolutions? if God part is bigger for you then evolution has it all wrong with all the scientists out there sorry buddy!.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I believe in the Bible, but i am not certain about this. It could be something else, like i said there was no sun so how there was evening and morning?... i take genesis seriously but i believe it seems the earth is old, however i don't think evolution is true, we are designed by God.

All of nature is designed by God. All of the same nature evolved over long periods of time.

People who think evolution just means humans came from chimps do not understand it at all.

 

[section9+1]

The serpent is symbolic of Satan. Revelation nails that down.[/QUOTE]
So then what of all the snakes crawling around out there. Are they just symbolic creatures? If there was no creature how could God curse it to go on its belly from then on?

 

[Favoredclay]

I wonder if part of the contention over evolution and creationism is because Christians feel like they are looked at as fools by the Scientific community as a whole. I know not all scientist do but a lot do, especially in our universities. Also, Christians feel it is unfair that creation is not taught as a possible origin of species in schools. I know before I was Christian I treated many Christians like fools and thought they were ( I am a retired Biologist and converted atheist ). Why can't we just let each other have their own belief and let God be the Judge?

 

[Archivist]

I wonder if part of the contention over evolution and creationism is because Christians feel like they are looked at as fools by the Scientific community as a whole. I know not all scientist do but a lot do, especially in our universities. Also, Christians feel it is unfair that creation is not taught as a possible origin of species in schools. I know before I was Christian I treated many Christians like fools and thought they were ( I am a retired Biologist and converted atheist ). Why can't we just let each other have their own belief and let God be the Judge?

I agree that everyone should have the right to their interpretation of scripture. I believe that evolution occurred, but if people want to believe the Genesis account that is their choice. I’ve never told anyone that they have to believe in evolution, but I’ve had some Christians tell be that I must believe the Genesis creation stories or I cannot be a Christian. Why do some people do this? Yet When I ask these same people if the bread and wine of Holy Communion is the body and blood of Jesus, they usually say no even though Jesus tells us this in my body and this is my blood. Double standard?

Creationism should not be taught in school science classes because there is no scientific support for it. I don’t have a problem with that.

 

[JulieB67]

What did Jesus mean when he told Nicodemus we are born both of water and spirit?

It means one has to be born from the womb (water) Being born again means to be born from above. And then when we accept Christ we are born of the spirit.

Is man only a physical being or are we spiritual?

Both

So then what of all the snakes crawling around out there. Are they just symbolic creatures? If there was no creature how could God curse it to go on its belly from then on?

Snakes are not symbolic, but the serpent in the garden was.

"Revelation 20:2 "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,"

We see that it is indeed Satan that was in the garden. In Ezekiel 28, King Tyre is also symbolic of Satan. Satan has many names but usually by the word we can identify him.

Snakes are not cursed. God is telling Satan he is the lowest of all creatures, and he is.


Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed. It shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise His heel."

And since we see that Satan is indeed that old serpent, we know this enmity is between Christ and Satan.

 

[section9+1]

Genesis 3:14. Have you read this? Satan used the serpent to tempt Eve. Satan was there. But the serpent was a real creature and it was cursed.

 

[section9+1]

I wonder if part of the contention over evolution and creationism is because Christians feel like they are looked at as fools by the Scientific community as a whole. I know not all scientist do but a lot do, especially in our universities. Also, Christians feel it is unfair that creation is not taught as a possible origin of species in schools. I know before I was Christian I treated many Christians like fools and thought they were ( I am a retired Biologist and converted atheist ). Why can't we just let each other have their own belief and let God be the Judge?

I like the idea of letting people believe what they want. If a person makes deliberate adult choices to shape what he believes, that's valid. And let God be the judge. Although I am not dismayed by what others think of Christian beliefs. In fact, if there is no friction between Christian and non-Christian, I'd say the Christian is not being very Christian. There's supposed to be tension. Christians should be seen as fools. They should be disdained. They are the smell of death. And that is supposed to be offensive.

 

[hedrick]

Genesis 3:14. Have you read this? Satan used the serpent to tempt Eve. Satan was there. But the serpent was a real creature and it was cursed.

If you simply read the story, there's no sign of Satan. It's just a snake. It's possible that the author was thinking of the snake as representing something more, but you can't say "read this" and expect us to find Satan in the text.

 

[hedrick]

I like the idea of letting people believe what they want. If a person makes deliberate adult choices to shape what he believes, that's valid. And let God be the judge. Although I am not dismayed by what others think of Christian beliefs. In fact, if there is no friction between Christian and non-Christian, I'd say the Christian is not being very Christian. There's supposed to be tension. Christians should be seen as fools. They should be disdained. They are the smell of death. And that is supposed to be offensive.

Right, but we should be fools because of our confidence in God, not because we refuse to believe things that are obviously true. It it were just evolution, the damage would be limited, but it seems that once you accept the idea that people who spend their lives trying to be objective are actually engaged in a conspiracy against Christians, the results aren't limited to evolution. It starts to extend to global warming, vaccines, sexual orientation, and all kinds of other things. Not all conservative Christians have all of these problems, but few limit their rejection of truth to evolution.

Does anyone remember Frances Shaeffer? When I was younger, he was a big voice among evangelicals. This was the period when evangelicals were accusing "liberals" of "postmodernism," an unwillingness to accept objective truth. At the time I dismissed this. I'm starting to think he had a point, but was looking in the wrong direction.

What's worse, the problem is getting worse. Vaccines were fairly uncontroversial until recently. Even the flat earth is making a comeback.

 

[Favoredclay]

Creationism should not be taught in school science classes because there is no scientific support for it. I don’t have a problem with that.

I think that is where the problem lies, that each group thinks there is no support for the other. Me personally, I don't think evolution as the origin of species is proven or verified. Yet, the scientific community accepts is as most likely and with the most supported evidence. Where the christian community insist that creation be taken on faith for the most part. I don't have a good answer, but I agree that science has done more work on the purely biological, chemical, geological and Physical properties of the earth and species. To the creationist this all starts after creation, for those on the evolution side it starts at a point unknown. What muddies the water is the mixing of theology and science, we as a society have not found a way to make them coalesce. The insistence that only one way is true is a wall to both. I do see your point that creation as a science theory is not part of science class and fits more into a theology. Actually, once you get past the point of origin,, the scientific and theology groups basically have very little problems agreeing on most things. Would it be outrageous for there to be at least a short chapter on alternative theories of origin within a science class? Then pick up science from that point on. It's not an easy answer.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think that is where the problem lies, that each group thinks there is no support for the other. Me personally, I don't think evolution as the origin of species is proven or verified. Yet, the scientific community accepts is as most likely and with the most supported evidence. Where the christian community insist that creation be taken on faith for the most part. I don't have a good answer, but I agree that science has done more work on the purely biological, chemical, geological and Physical properties of the earth and species. To the creationist this all starts after creation, for those on the evolution side it starts at a point unknown. What muddies the water is the mixing of theology and science, we as a society have not found a way to make them coalesce. The insistence that only one way is true is a wall to both. I do see your point that creation as a science theory is not part of science class and fits more into a theology. Actually, once you get past the point of origin,, the scientific and theology groups basically have very little problems agreeing on most things. Would it be outrageous for there to be at least a short chapter on alternative theories of origin within a science class? Then pick up science from that point on. It's not an easy answer.

A lot of theists tend to have issues with the "monkey to man" concept. Or the idea that people evolved from something more primitive. Which I personally think is a bigger issue than the question of the point of origin (abiogenesis or big bang). In which the theology and science would have friction after the point of origin.

Or do you view the point of origin more recently than the big bang or abiogenesis?

The reason I distinguish between these concepts is that, scientifically, the big bang was some 12-13 billion years ago, abiogenesis some 3-4 billion years ago, but "monkey to man" or primitive ape to homo sapiens, would have been perhaps just 500,000 years ago. So all three events are at drastically different points of time.

So when we talk about a "point of origin", it could mean different things.

 

[Brightmoon]

I hear what you are saying @expos4ever. However I think what you are describing, at least in your example of hominin creatures, is actually adaptation not evolution. Evolution, at least the Darwinian definition as I understand it is a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism. This would indeed mean that something like an ape evolved into a human, but I can't find any scientific evidence out there that shows that a fossil record indeed has been found showing that. We see lots of examples of adaptation in fossil records but there is still no direct link to new species evolution. IF there is please cite it for me so I can check it out.

a few little corrections . Adaptations are just successful natural selection so that IS evolution.Creationists have a sneaky unethical tendency of changing the meanings of science terminology. they’re trying to fool people into thinking their false ideas are correct. they should use terminology correctly .
There are about 26 protohuman species that are now extinct . Not all of them are our direct ancestors. Humans ARE apes specifically we’re great apes . That’s what Hominidae means . The older terminology ,Pongidae that referred to the non human great apes , is OFFICIALLY retired

 

[Favoredclay]

Or do you view the point of origin more recently than the big bang or abiogenesis?

Is it possible to believe a little of both? In the end I have a spiritual relationship with Jesus that I know is real....how we got here is not worth alienating all my fellows citizens of earth. I do think it is a distraction strategy of Satan. I truly have to ask myself, why does origin matter, as long as it's not used to deny the existence of God. I also wonder if that is not the leap the theologians make and fear, that proponents of evolution assume there is no God ?

I want to say, I have enjoyed this thread and all the discussion immensely. It has been a very good mental exercise and made me think about why I believe what I believe. As for me, it still comes down to Faith and faith alone. I had a spiritual experience with Jesus and continue to have a spiritual life in Christ Jesus....since life is moving forward, I will not let the past be an anchor to my destiny.

 

[Brightmoon]

A very short film on HUman evolution . This is a photo. For some weird reason my phone won’t link videos. You’ll have to google . Keep in mind that the “gaps” in the fossil record are filled in with nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA

 

[Brightmoon]

Is it possible to believe a little of both? In the end I have a spiritual relationship with Jesus that I know is real....how we got here is not worth alienating all my fellows citizens of earth. I do think it is a distraction strategy of Satan. I truly have to ask myself, why does origin matter, as long as it's not used to deny the existence of God. I also wonder if that is not the leap the theologians make and fear, that proponents of evolution assume there is no God ?

I want to say, I have enjoyed this thread and all the discussion immensely. It has been a very good mental exercise and made me think about why I believe what I believe. As for me, it still comes down to Faith and faith alone. I had a spiritual experience with Jesus and continue to have a spiritual life in Christ Jesus....since life is moving forward, I will not let the past be an anchor to my destiny.

. Since I know the Bible has been edited over the centuries I tend the think that natural phenomena is a more accurate description of God’s Creation since unlike the Bible it CANT BE edited . Scientists might lie ( rarely) or be mistaken but they’re usually found out eventually. The body of knowledge that points to the old earth and old universe are simply referred to as facts because they’ve been confirmed independently so often . One of the reasons I don’t trust creationists is because they’ve been caught lying or omitting important details to obscure accurate knowledge so , so many times .

 

[Job 33:6]

A very short film on HUman evolution . This is a photo. For some weird reason my phone won’t link videos. You’ll have to google . Keep in mind that the “gaps” in the fossil record are filled in with nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNAView attachment 278169

Here it is:

I actually really like the natural history museum in new York by the way. I've been to many museums and have looked at many fossil collections and presentations and the museum in new York probably has the best collection of any museum potentially in the US. Assuming their models originate from their own collection at least.

It's a pretty thorough museum, so much respect for the makers of this video.

 

[Archivist]

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.

Then you shouldn’t have any problem providing a list of peer-reviewed articles published by Project Steve members. There was no such list in your earlier posting.

 

[Archivist]

Like Lucy? (Australopithecus)

What is your problem with Lucy?