Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[jennimatts]

...

Believing and confessing Jesus died for your sins and was risin from the dead and carried your sins on the Cross is all you need to know to be saved.

The rest can come later...or never. Some things are secondary to Salvation.

Apologetics or Creation can be a witnessing tool for sure, and a good one, but one's Salvation isn't dependant on it.

I don't "believe in" the "theory of evolution" (yeah, I said believe in) whatsoever...but that doesn't mean there won't be any theistic evolutionists' in Heaven.

I agree with this, but when people allegorize the substance of the biblical concept of sin and salvation, I honestly wonder what they believe.

Do they understand what sin is? Do they believe Jesus was God incarnate? Do they believe Jesus was literally crucified on a physical cross and died? How far do they go with the notion of poetic language?

 

[Papias]

Jennimatts wrote:

I agree with this, but when people allegorize the substance of the biblical concept of sin and salvation, I honestly wonder what they believe.

Do they understand what sin is? Do they believe Jesus was God incarnate? Do they believe Jesus was literally crucified on a physical cross and died? How far do they go with the notion of poetic language?

Jennimatts, I directly answers all of those questions in my earlier post, #15. Didn't you see that? You have posted twice since then without acknowledging those answers to your questions. I hope you aren't ignoring answers to the very questions you are asking, because if so, then it doesn't reflect well on the forthrightness of your OP. You may have just missed the replies, however.

I've copied that whole post below for your convenience.

Papias

*****************************
*****************************


Gluadys' answers are very good - I agree with them. Here are mine.

Jennimatts wrote:

Papias,

Certainly the Bible does include some poetic speech. The difference is that Genesis 2:4 is very specific that it is a historical account and therefore cannot reasonably be reinterpreted as "simply poetic speech".
​

Really? Where does it say it isn't poetic speech? And, top theologians of many different denominations, who read Genesis in it's original Hebrew and have studied it for years, and are ministers themselves, have shown that it can be interpreted that way.


It's good that we agree that the Bible contains some poetic speech. I hope we all realize the the use of poetic speech doesn't invalidate the underlying truth. Jesus is called "the lamb of God", and the fact that we recognize that he isn't literally livestock in no way means that the whole Gospel is somehow false.

Regarding evolution, there is conflicting evidence.

Only about details of evolution (like wether the first mammals were around 170 million years ago, or didn't appear until 150 million years ago). About the basic fact of evolution, those who know the evidence, including millions of Christians have agreed that evolution is a fact.


​

You certainly are free to choose what facts to believe and how to interpret them, but I do not accept evolution as a fact.

No, I'm not free to choose what facts to believe. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. There is a real world out there, and to deny that by saying that "we each have our own truth" is delusional relativism. As Christians, we are not free to be relativistic about the facts.

You may choose what scientists and theologians to believe, but since not all theologians have the same beliefs, obviously some are wrong. (...unless you subscribe to the "all roads lead to God" theory which is antibiblical.)

​

While the interpretation of scripture does indeed have many different views, practically all scientists, including millions who are Christians, agree on evolution.

I freely admit I don't know how a solid Christian faith is built upon theistic evolution. It seems to me to indicate God is incapable of clearly communicating to those he... uh... "created".

​

Thank you for your openness. God didn't reveal all of the information about evolution in scripture, just as he didn't reveal everything about astronomy, geology, computers, physiology, or most scientific fields. If God had wanted the scripture to be a science textbook, it would have been a lot longer, and probably a lot less comprehensible to ancient people.

And yes, "created" is the right word. God created us and everything, whether he used evolution to do so or not.

Accepting theistic evolution is believing the "almighty" hand of God must simply wait for billions of years for something to occur naturalistically, He isn't powerful enough to simply create everything in 6 days.

​

If you remove God from the world, saying it is only "naturalistic", then you have greatly dimished you view of God, and fallen for the line of the atheist. God actively created, he didn't "wait" for something to occur without His action. Jesus makes this clear in John 5:17

I am interested in knowing what faith in theistic evolution is and how one can hold to that faith without substantially diminishing the gospel message.

​

Thanks for asking. For me, theistic evolution has made the Gospel much stronger, more abidingly real, and God more vast, glorious and honest. In theistic evolution, God is ever present, from the first clambering fish on land through fall of man, to the rise of nation-states. Jesus is the real solution to the real problem of original sin, and no denial of science is needed nor helpful. Obviously it's too big a topic to cover everything, so maybe ask a more specific question in a new thread?

I don't see how such faith could avoid leading to redefining who God is, what sin is, how sin has separated us from God, how God provided a means of forgiveness through the messiah, eternal life, etc.

​

Well, redefining God from the idea of a white haired man on throne in the sky, sure. God is much more vast and majestic than that to me. Sin separates us from God the same way, through original sin. For me (but not all theistic evolution supporters), that includes a literal, historical, single person, Adam, the father of us all. This is described in post #2, here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7604434/.

What is God? Is he able do miracles, or are those all poetic speech as well?

​

Yes, He can do miracles, but calling things that need no miraculous explanation "miracles" (like evolution) cheapens the real ones, and opens us as Christians to the charge of being gullible.

Was the crucifixion poetic or real? What about Jesus' resurrection? Is salvation merely poetic?

all real.

Yes, I do use language in a way to provoke a response. Hopefully it challenges some to consider what they believe.

​

OK. Please accept my apology in advance for any time my language seems agressive in response. I don't mean it that way.

FYI, in most cases creationist Churches are teaching the bible according to the clearest, most obvious understanding of the text, and not reinterpreting our beliefs by modern ideas.

​

The "clearest, most obvious" literal understanding of the text is often incorrect, as shown by both the real world and by other scripture. For instance, the "clearest, most obvious" reading of the Bible says that the earth is both flat and stationary, and that diseases are generally caused not by germs but by demon possession. Saying that only a litearal approach can be used ties us to errors like geocentrism and creationism.

Papias

 

[jennimatts]

Jennimatts wrote:

Jennimatts, I directly answers all of those questions in my earlier post, #15. Didn't you see that? You have posted twice since then without acknowledging those answers to your questions. I hope you aren't ignoring answers to the very questions you are asking, because if so, then it doesn't reflect well on the forthrightness of your OP. You may have just missed the replies, however.

Papias

I don't mean to ignore. I've been very busy for a few days, so I do need to review the thread and also carefully ponder what you've said. I'm not quite sure I got the whole meaning of your post at first, so it might take awhile for me to think through it. Thanks for your patience.

At the same time, I doubt all theistic evolutionists have identical beliefs, so perhaps others will post their understanding of the issue as well.

Jenni

 

[gluadys]

I agree with this, but when people allegorize the substance of the biblical concept of sin and salvation, I honestly wonder what they believe.

Do they understand what sin is? Do they believe Jesus was God incarnate? Do they believe Jesus was literally crucified on a physical cross and died? How far do they go with the notion of poetic language?

I think the problem is that you equate "allegorize" with "don't believe". You may be under the impression that it is a way to disguise unbelief that a person doesn't want to admit.

But that is not usually the case. Allegory is a form of literature and recognizing some literature in the Bible has that form doesn't mean a person no longer believes what it teaches.

So to answer your other questions, at least for myself, but I think for many others as well. Yes, I know what sin is. Yes I believe Jesus was God incarnate. Yes I believe he was literally crucified on a physical cross and died. And I go as far with the notion of poetic language as makes sense to me and is consistent with the way the text is written.

 

[jennimatts]

I think the problem is that you equate "allegorize" with "don't believe". You may be under the impression that it is a way to disguise unbelief that a person doesn't want to admit.

Not necessarily. Clearly there are some differences in what we believe, but I don't think it is a disguise for unbelief. I'm certain we both are sincere about our beliefs.

But, I still have concern that some may see greater portions of the scripture as poetic, open to their own interpretations, and that may result in not having a saving understanding of the gospel.

I will also continue to take issue with Papias assertion that "The evidence has shown us humans that evolution is a fact of reality...". I welcome your further comments on the subject.

 

[philadiddle]

hey jennimatts, i was wondering if you can respond to my question in post 12? I see you said you've been busy lately so hopefully you can spare some time to get to it.

 

[gluadys]

Not necessarily. Clearly there are some differences in what we believe, but I don't think it is a disguise for unbelief. I'm certain we both are sincere about our beliefs.

But, I still have concern that some may see greater portions of the scripture as poetic, open to their own interpretations, and that may result in not having a saving understanding of the gospel.

I will also continue to take issue with Papias assertion that "The evidence has shown us humans that evolution is a fact of reality...". I welcome your further comments on the subject.

Well, all scripture is open to interpretation. We can't avoid that because understanding anything at all means interpreting it. Never forget that the way you think about scripture is also an interpretation.

So we need to consider why we interpret any scriptural passage as we do. Most importantly, we need to consider how the biblical writer wanted it to be interpreted.

 

[Papias]

Jenni wrote:

I don't mean to ignore. I've been very busy for a few days, so I do need to review the thread and also carefully ponder what you've said. I'm not quite sure I got the whole meaning of your post at first, so it might take awhile for me to think through it. Thanks for your patience.

At the same time, I doubt all theistic evolutionists have identical beliefs, so perhaps others will post their understanding of the issue as well.

Jenni

yes, all good. Sorry if I offended at all. We all have lives too, and I know how easy it is to get busy.

Papias

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Look at what Exodus says...

Exodus 19:2-4 (NIV)
Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. ...

It says clearly that the Jews were flown out of Egypt on "eagles' wings". If this account is not true, then the book of Exodus is a lie.

If Exodus is a lie, then the origin of the concept of God's deliverance is also a lie, so why believe in a messiah coming to save people from sin?

I don't understand why anyone who doesn't believe the biblical account of flying on eagles' wings would want to be a christian.
​

No, I personally don't believe the Jews literally flew out of Egypt on eagles' wings. This is simply poetic speech, and I hope we all realize that the use of poetic speech in the Bible doesn't invalidate the Bible, nor Christianity.

I see little difference between the indented section above and the OP.

Then you can't discern between a narrative of real events which bears upon doctrine and a figure of speech. The use of figurative language in Genesis does not mean that the creation accounts are not a true account of what happened. Writers in ancient times did not have a problem with mixing figurative language and divine intervention with historical writing,because people commonly thought in poetic and mythological and religious ways. Figures of speech were not limited to mere fancy but were used to express realities. And historical facts were not limited to literal language. Even modern historians have to resort to figurative language to express large-scale historical events or cultural phenomena or ideological movements.

Fair question. "Believe" is not quite the right word. The evidence has shown us humans that evolution is a fact of reality, just as gravitational theory and atomic theory.

The evidence that is used to support the theory of evolution does not show evolution,only patterns of similarity between species. The theory of evolution is a story about the supposed descent of all species from a common ancestor. The origins of species is not a part of common experience like gravity and it cannot be detected like atomic particles.

An informed exegesis of Genesis, which makes sense to me and is supported by many theologians who read the Bible in it's orginal Hebrew, shows that Genesis is like a poem on creation, a symbolic text emphasizing that God is the creator, and can't be expected to convey 21st century science to ancient people. My faith tells me that God created, and science shows how he created (by using evolution). This realization has deepened my understanding of God and deepened my faith.

This exegesis is certainly not informed by the teaching of the Church,which does not teach that Genesis is a symbolic text. The creations accounts are true accounts of what happened,apart from the symbolic meaning of some of the verses. And that Genesis does not convey scientific knowledge is besides the point. The images of the trees of knowledge and life and the snake are symbolic,but they also express realities. There is no dichotomy in the creation accounts between poetic or symbolic language and real things or events.

 

[TasManOfGod]

We all use a combination of literal and metaphors every day. Why can't God do the same. Do we have problems interpreting what each other mean. No unless we dont know them very well.

 

[Achilles6129]

Genesis, chapters 1-10, are in no way allegorical, and represent a meaningful historical account. That the days were literal should be obvious with the phrase "evening and morning were the second day" etc. That the Flood of Noah was meant to be literal (not a parable) and global should again be obvious just by the nature of the account. That Genesis is meant to be real history should again be obvious with the great ages of the people involved.

It is good that you are concerned that the Bible is being interpreted properly. Unfortunately, modern Christianity (I suppose it would be better put 'historical Christianity') has never had any issues with making the Bible out to say whatever they want it to say. Things can always be 'reinterpreted' - and the same has been done with Gen. 1-10.

But that's not the point of true, sincere Biblical exegesis. The point is to find out what the text means, and what God wanted to say, not what man wants it to say. In both cases the answers are obvious.

As far as evolution being a "fact", it is about as factual as the ancient Ptolemaic model of the solar system. Abiogenesis, the Cambrian explosion, the lack of gradualism in the fossil record - these are only some of the hostile evidences against evolution. The bottom line is that evolution is a religion or a philosophy, and requires a great deal of belief, regardless of propaganda to the contrary.

As far as advice for Jenni, I would suggest not debating with theistic evolutionists. As far as they are concerned, evidence hostile to evolution is inadmissable - all evidence must be interpreted within the evolutionary framework. All creationist scientists are "not real scientists" and are "doing Christianity a disservice" etc. Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution has "a fundamental misunderstanding of the way science works".

I would also recommend reading some essays by David Berlinski. An avid mathematician (from Princeton) and philosopher, Berlinski has some very insightful articles/books about evolution and even atheism in general. You may also want to read some journals/articles that creationist scientists have written about the subject.

If you do believe in theistic evolution, you necessarily have to believe that God created this universe the way it presently is - with suffering, disease, cancer, blindness, death (physical), etc. Theistic evolutionists will try to convince you that this is indeed a "good" God - I'm not buying it. No good God would want this world to be the present way that it is.

They've never had a particularly good response to this point. The best that they can say is "subjective value statement" etc., and move on - but this is no subjective value statement. Were God perfect, and good, God would create the universe (in its initial state) in a reflection of himself. If you believe that suffering, disease, death, cancer, war, rape, etc., is a reflection of God, (as this is the universe in its present form) then this God is not very perfect, nor is he very good.


Hence, there are not only scientific reasons to reject evolution, but also powerful philosophical ones as well. Good luck, Jenni

 

[philadiddle]

Achilles6129,

Can you please answer my question in post 12? I'd like to know what you think about that.

 

[mark kennedy]

Look at what Genesis says...

Genesis 2:1-4 (NKJV)
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...

It says clearly that the biblical creation account is the "history of the heavens and the earth". If the creation account is not true, then the book of Genesis is a lie.

If Genesis is a lie, then the origin of the concept of sin is also a lie, so why believe in a messiah coming to save people from sin?

I don't understand why anyone who doesn't believe the biblical account of creation would want to be a christian.

If you don't believe the biblical account of creation, what do you believe, why, and how is it logical to believe as you do?

The way I see it, the resurrection, creation and being born again are all the same miracle, just a different context. Now I know for a fact that there are a lot of Christians who believe the New Testament, miracles and all but remain skeptical of older histories in the Bible. I don't have a problem with it unless there only interest is to undermine confidence in the clear testimony of Scripture I get concerned.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Genesis, chapters 1-10, are in no way allegorical, and represent a meaningful historical account. That the days were literal should be obvious with the phrase "evening and morning were the second day" etc. That the Flood of Noah was meant to be literal (not a parable) and global should again be obvious just by the nature of the account. That Genesis is meant to be real history should again be obvious with the great ages of the people involved.

I don't know, you could get a local flood if you tortured the text enough, scholars sometimes do.

It is good that you are concerned that the Bible is being interpreted properly. Unfortunately, modern Christianity (I suppose it would be better put 'historical Christianity') has never had any issues with making the Bible out to say whatever they want it to say. Things can always be 'reinterpreted' - and the same has been done with Gen. 1-10.

But that's not the point of true, sincere Biblical exegesis. The point is to find out what the text means, and what God wanted to say, not what man wants it to say. In both cases the answers are obvious.

As far as evolution being a "fact", it is about as factual as the ancient Ptolemaic model of the solar system. Abiogenesis, the Cambrian explosion, the lack of gradualism in the fossil record - these are only some of the hostile evidences against evolution. The bottom line is that evolution is a religion or a philosophy, and requires a great deal of belief, regardless of propaganda to the contrary.

As far as advice for Jenni, I would suggest not debating with theistic evolutionists. As far as they are concerned, evidence hostile to evolution is inadmissable - all evidence must be interpreted within the evolutionary framework. All creationist scientists are "not real scientists" and are "doing Christianity a disservice" etc. Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution has "a fundamental misunderstanding of the way science works".

I would also recommend reading some essays by David Berlinski. An avid mathematician (from Princeton) and philosopher, Berlinski has some very insightful articles/books about evolution and even atheism in general. You may also want to read some journals/articles that creationist scientists have written about the subject.

Saw him weigh in with a group of ID proponents once, it was awesome.

Dr. David Berlinski on the flaws of Darwinian Evolution Part 1 - YouTube

If you do believe in theistic evolution, you necessarily have to believe that God created this universe the way it presently is - with suffering, disease, cancer, blindness, death (physical), etc. Theistic evolutionists will try to convince you that this is indeed a "good" God - I'm not buying it. No good God would want this world to be the present way that it is.

They've never had a particularly good response to this point. The best that they can say is "subjective value statement" etc., and move on - but this is no subjective value statement. Were God perfect, and good, God would create the universe (in its initial state) in a reflection of himself. If you believe that suffering, disease, death, cancer, war, rape, etc., is a reflection of God, (as this is the universe in its present form) then this God is not very perfect, nor is he very good.


Hence, there are not only scientific reasons to reject evolution, but also powerful philosophical ones as well. Good luck, Jenni

Not only do I believe otherwise but I believe that you have evidence for God, specifically:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)​

God is good but sinners are bad, marked by 'suffering, disease, death, cancer, war, rape'. Of course there is misery and destruction in our world, far to much of it our own creation. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with moral outrage if they are provoked by a pointed and defensible issue.

Guess I have a little bit different way of looking at it. David Berlinski doesn't like Darwinism, the thing is, Darwinism has always been an easy target. The trouble is that secular metaphysics is like chasing ghosts in the fog, it's a philosophy marked by what they don't believe rather then what can be understood by the things that were made.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[chris4243]

Belief in God is a matter of faith. But the non-literalness of the creation and flood accounts is a matter of fact, with well-documented evidence for it.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Genesis, chapters 1-10, are in no way allegorical, and represent a meaningful historical account. That the days were literal should be obvious with the phrase "evening and morning were the second day" etc. That the Flood of Noah was meant to be literal (not a parable) and global should again be obvious just by the nature of the account. That Genesis is meant to be real history should again be obvious with the great ages of the people involved.

I would challenge this by saying that this only makes sense if you're debating Day-Age Creationism. For people who say that the days are metaphorical or analogical (similar to but different from human work days), then it makes complete sense to use the symbolism of non-literal evenings and mornings as book ends to a non-literal day.


As in English, the terms "evening" and "morning" also had the connotation of an ending and beginning, respectively. Technically they could refer to the ending and beginning of an age, but I would agree with you that the implication of a day ending and another day beginning is too strong to allow the Hebrew word "yom" to have its secondary meaning of an age here. I don't agree that these days are literal, however.

It is good that you are concerned that the Bible is being interpreted properly. Unfortunately, modern Christianity (I suppose it would be better put 'historical Christianity') has never had any issues with making the Bible out to say whatever they want it to say. Things can always be 'reinterpreted' - and the same has been done with Gen. 1-10.

I will agree that wantonly reinterpreting the Bible is not an insignificant problem, but sometimes, we find information that makes it necessary to revisit our views on Scripture. Although I hate to drag up the old "before Galileo we were all geocentrists" thing again, it's definitely true. Reinterpreting Scripture to fit known external facts is something that the Christian Church has done throughout history.

Even at Galileo's trial, the main issue was not that Galileo had reinterpreted Scripture, but that he had done it without what the members of the Church saw as sufficient evidence. They were cautious, not willfully opposed to evidence that challenged their beliefs. Eventually, the Church became convinced that the evidence was strong enough to completely disregard geocentrism, and they looked at verses of Scripture which they had previously seen as suggesting geocentrism in a different light. I believe that the evidence for a very old Earth and for evolution are strong enough that we should look at certain parts of the Bible in a different light now.

But that's not the point of true, sincere Biblical exegesis. The point is to find out what the text means, and what God wanted to say, not what man wants it to say. In both cases the answers are obvious.

The problem with viewing Scripture in this way is that we are not dealing with a classic work of literature; we are dealing with a Book which described facts about the Universe in which we live. To properly understand it, we cannot just speculate about what the original authors meant several thousand years ago (information we can never truly have since we did not have the experiences they did and did not live in their world), we must look at the world which it describes.

As far as advice for Jenni, I would suggest not debating with theistic evolutionists. As far as they are concerned, evidence hostile to evolution is inadmissable - all evidence must be interpreted within the evolutionary framework. All creationist scientists are "not real scientists" and are "doing Christianity a disservice" etc. Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution has "a fundamental misunderstanding of the way science works".

As far as advice for you, I would suggest being more charitable toward others who are within the Christian fold, even if you disagree with them. A lot of us have come to a belief in evolution through looking at the evidence, and some of us (probably not many on this board, but definitely some) have made that journey painfully. Glenn Morton is a key example:

http://www.answersincreation.org/whyileft.htm

 

[Smidlee]

As far as advice for you, I would suggest being more charitable toward others who are within the Christian fold, even if you disagree with them. A lot of us have come to a belief in evolution through looking at the evidence, and some of us (probably not many on this board, but definitely some) have made that journey painfully. Glenn Morton is a key example:

Old Earth Creation Science Testimony - Why I Left Young Earth Creationism, by Glenn Morton

It seems Glenn Morton also left here. He mention something about how TE are so quick to debate creationist yet hardly ever make a stand against atheism.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

It seems Glenn Morton also left here. He mention something about how TE are so quick to debate creationist yet hardly ever make a stand against atheism.

I know that he left, unfortunately. I just found out very recently that he ever had an account on this site.

 

[mark kennedy]

Look at what Genesis says...

Genesis 2:1-4 (NKJV)
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...

It says clearly that the biblical creation account is the "history of the heavens and the earth". If the creation account is not true, then the book of Genesis is a lie.

If Genesis is a lie, then the origin of the concept of sin is also a lie, so why believe in a messiah coming to save people from sin?

I don't understand why anyone who doesn't believe the biblical account of creation would want to be a christian.

If you don't believe the biblical account of creation, what do you believe, why, and how is it logical to believe as you do?

If I woke up this morning and for what ever reason, decided that the Genesis account of creation was somehow untrue I'm not sure that the rest of my convictions would even be effected. Of course, God is ultimately the primary first cause of creation but whether or not we are talking about a spontaneous and instantaneous creation is another matter.

The problem with the whole origins theology subject matter is you have two camps, evolutionist and christian. There is no middle ground because the atheistic materialists who are the core evolutionist brain thrust has rejected theistic reason entirely. Christian do end up on the wrong side of these debates but what they are arguing is not theistic evolution but an incessant battering of a worldview that includes miracles. As far as the secular world is concerned believing in creation, the resurrection, virgin birth, ascension and the soon return of Christ are no different then believing in Santa Clause or lucky pennies.

I'm not making this up, I read the things these people write. As far as Christians who weigh in on the side of Darwinism is they inevitably abandon apologetics never to consider it again. Most of them have only the vaguest interest in theology and doctrine and are marked by a confrontational and condescending attitude toward Bible believing Christians.

Don't believe for a second that this worldview is satisfied with you abandoning a literal understanding of Genesis 1. If you really listen to what they post they do not engage skeptics and will focus on Bible believing Christians in mass.

If you want to know for yourself it's easy enough. Ask them about essential Christianity and what it means for a person to be born again. The truth of the matter is that creation, the resurrection and the new creation are all the same miracle, you can't deny one without denying them entirely. If it's possible to reject creation without abandoning essential Christian doctrine I have yet to see it. When it comes to Genesis it's like every mention of God's work throughout human history, you either believe the engrafted word and mature to bear fruit or you are an imposter.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

The problem with the whole origins theology subject matter is you have two camps, evolutionist and christian.

This is just wrong.

As far as the secular world is concerned believing in creation, the resurrection, virgin birth, ascension and the soon return of Christ are no different then believing in Santa Clause or lucky pennies.

That's true. But it is also true that many people who take these miracles seriously and believe in them (IOW, Christians) also accept that evolution is a fact of nature and natural history. And that is what makes the earlier statement wrong.

Sure, it is hard to go against the grain of a secularized culture, but it is just as hard for Christians who accept evolution as for those who reject it. Evolution is not what makes a difference in this respect.

If you want to know for yourself it's easy enough. Ask them about essential Christianity and what it means for a person to be born again. The truth of the matter is that creation, the resurrection and the new creation are all the same miracle, you can't deny one without denying them entirely.

You are right and yet wrong at the same time. Yes, creation, resurrection, new creation are all part of the same miracle.

But evolution is not about rejecting creation.

It only rejects one human view of what the creation accounts mean. For an evolutionary creationist, creation includes evolution as part of the creation. So it does not involve rejecting creation at all. Nor miracles, nor resurrection, nor new creation.