How a literal 7 day creation can work with evolution claims without changing a word of either

[drich0150]

The church will be exactly where God expects it to be. We already knew that few will find the narrow gate, resorting to promoting fallacies isn’t going to change that. Where do we draw the line brother? Do we start trying to reduce Christ’s resurrection to a trivial natural occurrence, maybe even implying that He didn’t actually die, He only appeared to be dead? I’m not accusing you of potentially doing this just pointing out that we don’t help anyone by diminishing the divine nature of God’s miracles.

Where has anything I've said change a word of the Bible?

I've simply offered a Different INTERPRETATION. Same verses, literal 7 day creation and I also clean up all the paradoxes, answer all the typical questions that come from a traditional interpretations (took the incest out of the story) plus I fill in all plot holes left by a traditional reading by basically pointing out there is no time line between Genesis chapter 2 and Genesis chapter 3, and that day 3 Adam is Not the same creation as day 6 man made in God's image.

 

[drich0150]

So the day of Jerusalem’s pride was a 24 hour period? Ezekiel 16:56 uses the same exact spelling and usage of the word be-yo-vm.

Do you not seem to understand how basic reference material is used.

Translation example B as highlighted above specifically translates Genesis 2:17's "yom" into a specific 24 hour period. Eze 16 is NOT mentioned in example "B". What is referenced as a 24 hour period in example "B" is genesis 2:4, exo 10:28, isa 11:16, lam 3:57, and lev 11:35... Eve 22 nor 20 is mentioned. meaning the context of eze does not support the translation of example "B". rendering the rest of your argument moot.

No offense and it is with a humble I do not think you are capable of having this discussion. As either you will not or can not yield to the reference material (secondary source) provided by the Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon. It tells you that Genesis 2:17 "Day you will die" and give several other examples of this word being translated as a literal 24 hour period. Not because of spelling as you presuppose but because of context, and you can not accept this.

which means there is nothing more to discuss. we have taken this discussion as far as we can go together.

 

[JacksBratt]

you still do not know what's going on here yet you argue as if I am not saying the same thing!!!

I am saying GOD CREATED EVERYTHING IN 6 LITERAL DAYS AND RESTED!!! Go back watch the video in the OP if the OP is too hard to follow.

Because in addition to the literal 7 day creation period I have also found a way to make all of evolution work with the literal 7 day creation without changing a written word in genesis!

Not that He needed to rest, however, He set the precedent for our work week and a day of rest.

It is a half truth to throw in any "evolving". Scientists can say what they will. I will hold God to be true and every man a liar.
Again, if a literal 7 days creation is possible with all of evolution how is this a 1/2 truth? Wouldn't a 1/2 truth be that one can only choose creation or evolution if God did both?


what if God left nothing out, what if we just assume a Bronze Age interpretation of the creation narrative is the only way things could happen when in fact the narrative supports a much more comprehensive understanding without adding a word or taking anything away from the word. meaning only how we understand what is written need change.

If you want to "make evolution work".. that's fine.
I don't hold "evolution" as anything more than a fairy tale.

God made all the things of this world and after He made them He stated "and it was good".

To me, when He states "it was good".. there is no need for modification. No need for further work. No need for upgrading or evolving.

You can believe what you believe. I'll believe what I beleive.

God bless.

Genesis 1:25 God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that crawls upon the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If you want to "make evolution work".. that's fine.
I don't hold "evolution" as anything more than a fairy tale.

God made all the things of this world and after He made them He stated "and it was good".

To me, when He states "it was good".. there is no need for modification. No need for further work. No need for upgrading or evolving.

You can believe what you believe. I'll believe what I beleive.

God bless.

Genesis 1:25 God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that crawls upon the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

I just looked up the definition of the Hebrew word ṭôb and it doesn’t seem to imply that it could be translated as good enough for now.

 

[drich0150]

If you want to "make evolution work".. that's fine.
I don't hold "evolution" as anything more than a fairy tale.

God made all the things of this world and after He made them He stated "and it was good".

To me, when He states "it was good".. there is no need for modification. No need for further work. No need for upgrading or evolving.

You can believe what you believe. I'll believe what I beleive.

God bless.

Genesis 1:25 God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that crawls upon the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

The only problem with that is the word "Good" does not equate in anyway to the definition of the word complete. Nor are their any examples scripturally that would indicate that good means complete.

For example if a farmer plows a field and he looks at it and it is "good" it does not mean his greater purpose of eating bread made from his crop and or storing grain in complete.

If my chicken sat on 15 eggs and all 15 hatched, this again is an example of "good" but the purpose of me raising chickens is eating eggs and meat, then the fact that all 15 eggs hatched doesn't mean my task is complete. I still have to feed and protect my flock for several months before they are ready to lay eggs and even longer if I want to eat one.

And in genesis 1 On the first day God created light. and he saw the light and said the light was "good." So then why on Day 4 did God create the sun? If the light was 'complete" then what purpose does the sun have? If you say "counting days" then how do we know the sun was created day 4 if there were 3 previous days counted with no sun?

Look, As I said before if you are one of the 20%ers who can faith your way through any question without an answer that makes sense, great. But again also know 80% of our children can't. If this is not for you, that's fine. However I ask that you not be a stumbling block for one who needs more than your specific brand of faith.

 

[JacksBratt]

The only problem with that is the word "Good" does not equate in anyway to the definition of the word complete. Nor are their any examples scripturally that would indicate that good means complete.

For example if a farmer plows a field and he looks at it and it is "good" it does not mean his greater purpose of eating bread made from his crop and or storing grain in complete.

If my chicken sat on 15 eggs and all 15 hatched, this again is an example of "good" but the purpose of me raising chickens is eating eggs and meat, then the fact that all 15 eggs hatched doesn't mean my task is complete. I still have to feed and protect my flock for several months before they are ready to lay eggs and even longer if I want to eat one.

And in genesis 1 On the first day God created light. and he saw the light and said the light was "good." So then why on Day 4 did God create the sun? If the light was 'complete" then what purpose does the sun have? If you say "counting days" then how do we know the sun was created day 4 if there were 3 previous days counted with no sun?

Look, As I said before if you are one of the 20%ers who can faith your way through any question without an answer that makes sense, great. But again also know 80% of our children can't. If this is not for you, that's fine. However I ask that you not be a stumbling block for one who needs more than your specific brand of faith.

Well, we are saved by faith.
God will make those that profess to be wise... to be seen for the fools that they are.
Better God be true and every man a liar. I will take God's simple comprehendable word over the words of those in white lab coats who wish God would go away.

As for the word "good" in Genesis.. Did you see post #124?

 

[Jonaitis]

Here is a brief summary.
basically gen 1 is a 7 day over view, and ending day 6 with man made in the image of god (no soul). This version of man could have very well evolved, and been waiting outside the garden this whole time. Chapter 2:4 is the being of the garden only narrative. this narrative happens at the same time the 7 days of creation are happening. the true beginning of chapter two starts verse 4 and describes mid day on day 2 to be the start of the garden only narrative, and ends mid day three. So everything in the garden happens in one of god creation days. remember most all of chapter 2 is garden narrative only. meaning aside from the very first part of chapter 2 that describes day 7 the day of rest the rest of chapter two describes what only took place in the garden. it STARTS with the creation of a man named Adam. Adam was made of mud and given a soul. from Adam God made eve. then next thing of note there is no time line between chapter 2 and chapter 3. so while Adam and eve via the tree of life they did have access to, remain the same in the garden with god. everything outside the garden ‘evolved’ till about 6000 years ago where chapter three describes the fall of man. this is why the genologies stop 6000 years ago. So again at the very beginning of creation of earth on day 2 God makes adam and from adam made eve and they were placed in the garden with god by the end of day three and remain in the garden with god for potentially hundreds if not billions of years, while everything outside the garden is made to evolve. till about 6000 years ago when they were kicked out of the garden for their sins to then mix in with man made on day 6/evolved man

I feel that if a literal 6-day creation "worked," it wouldn't be difficult in the least to prove. We would clearly see that in God's blueprint. However, we find that it doesn't smoothly fit with the math and models we can base our observations on, and that seems to be a problem. If you need to defend what should defend itself, can it really be true? A literal 6-day creation requires a lot of gymnastics, IMO.

If we cannot accept reality, then do we believe in reality? Or would we rather accept a sort of idealism that is consistent with our doctrinal beliefs? Augustine did not take the account literally, but found rich Christiological meaning in it instead. A safe position to take.

 

[JacksBratt]

I feel that if a literal 6-day creation "worked," it wouldn't be difficult in the least to prove. We would clearly see that in God's blueprint. However, we find that it doesn't smoothly fit with the math and models we can base our observations on, and that seems to be a problem. If you need to defend what should defend itself, can it really be true? A literal 6-day creation requires a lot of gymnastics, IMO.

If we cannot accept reality, then do we believe in reality? Or would we rather accept a sort of idealism that is consistent with our doctrinal beliefs? Augustine did not take the account literally, but found rich Christiological meaning in it instead. A safe position to take.

Maybe you can show me how a man walking, on water, out to a boat in the middle of the sea... works.
Maybe you can show me how two great vats of freshly drawn water turns to very good wine in an instant.. works.
Maybe you can show me how the Red Sea, parting and exposing dry land... works.
Maybe you can show me how the sun and moon stand still... works.
Maybe you can show me how a talking donkey... works.
Maybe you can show me how a man, dies of flogging and crucifixion, disappears from a tomb, shows up later, walks through walls.. floats up to the sky and disappears... Works.

Science to God is nothing.

The entire Gospel is accepted by faith in things that, according to Science... don't work.

And, you eternal life.... is dependent on these things that "don't work".

Do you think that God could make the entire universe, as it is stated, in six days?

Yes, or no?

 

[drich0150]

Well, we are saved by faith.
God will make those that profess to be wise... to be seen for the fools that they are.
Better God be true and every man a liar. I will take God's simple comprehendable word over the words of those in white lab coats who wish God would go away.

As for the word "good" in Genesis.. Did you see post #124?

I did see 124.. Do you understand good enough for now does not mean perfect/complete meaning things could change over time, right??

this supports my argument more than good=complete/will never change does it not?

 

[drich0150]

a

Maybe you can show me how a man walking, on water, out to a boat in the middle of the sea... works.
Maybe you can show me how two great vats of freshly drawn water turns to very good wine in an instant.. works.
Maybe you can show me how the Red Sea, parting and exposing dry land... works.
Maybe you can show me how the sun and moon stand still... works.
Maybe you can show me how a talking donkey... works.
Maybe you can show me how a man, dies of flogging and crucifixion, disappears from a tomb, shows up later, walks through walls.. floats up to the sky and disappears... Works.

Science to God is nothing.

The entire Gospel is accepted by faith in things that, according to Science... don't work.

And, you eternal life.... is dependent on these things that "don't work".

Do you think that God could make the entire universe, as it is stated, in six days?

Yes, or no?

Maybe in your zeal to defend your beliefs, you missed the point of this post..

Just fyi 70% of our children meaning 70% of christian children who have been in the faith all of their lives, 70% of them we send off to college loose their faith in the first 2 years. by the 4th year we loose 80%
Your question should be Why..

you should ask this because the church can not sustain loosing this many of the next generation of followers for very long, meaning for the first time since Christ, the church has a real chance of collapse , because we are loosing 80% of our future. and of the 20%ers who's faith can sustain them completely despite what science says.. 80% or more of their children will never return to church after the graduate..
So within one or two generations the church will be gone.

So again if you Ask the reason why we are loosing so many, it is because They are all taught to think logically. then made to apply this brand of logic to science Vs the Bible. If science proves in their mind that the very first story is false and Jesus references it s if it were 100% literal, then Jesus can not be God and the whole system of faith collapses. meaning we never even get to any of the miracles.

Which is why... This narrative is so important to those who NEED to reconcile a literal 7 day creation with everything evolution says without changing a word in the Bible or changing what evolution says..

And that is the point of this whole thread. If you are one of the 20%ers who does not care what science or "logic" says, and you can still believe in your understanding of the god or your version of the Bible even if Jesus himself tells you youre wrong... then great, run with the 6000 year old earth stuff, or what ever your faith is built on. you do you boo..

However, If you need a way to reconcile science with god in order to maintain your faith this is a biblically accurate way of doing it.

 

[Jonaitis]

Maybe you can show me how a man walking, on water, out to a boat in the middle of the sea... works.
Maybe you can show me how two great vats of freshly drawn water turns to very good wine in an instant.. works.
Maybe you can show me how the Red Sea, parting and exposing dry land... works.
Maybe you can show me how the sun and moon stand still... works.
Maybe you can show me how a talking donkey... works.
Maybe you can show me how a man, dies of flogging and crucifixion, disappears from a tomb, shows up later, walks through walls.. floats up to the sky and disappears... Works.

Science to God is nothing.

The entire Gospel is accepted by faith in things that, according to Science... don't work.

And, you eternal life.... is dependent on these things that "don't work".

Do you think that God could make the entire universe, as it is stated, in six days?

Yes, or no?

The universe can be observed and studied. If it is all a miracle, that would not be possible. It is wrong to compare miracles of the bible with the natural laws of the universe. God is not the author of confusion. He does not deceive us by setting up a young universe to only appear old by observation. It is like saying that God buried fossils to poke a joke at modern science.

God can do anything, I am not denying that. However, God does not deceive us. If the universe shows us that it is much older, and the process in planetary development is longer than a week, should we simply outright call it out as false? How naïve! If we can't believe something we can directly study, then how can we trust in a position that is based only on a belief? Are we living in reality?!

 

[JacksBratt]

a


Maybe in your zeal to defend your beliefs, you missed the point of this post..

Just fyi 70% of our children meaning 70% of christian children who have been in the faith all of their lives, 70% of them we send off to college loose their faith in the first 2 years. by the 4th year we loose 80%
Your question should be Why..

you should ask this because the church can not sustain loosing this many of the next generation of followers for very long, meaning for the first time since Christ, the church has a real chance of collapse , because we are loosing 80% of our future. and of the 20%ers who's faith can sustain them completely despite what science says.. 80% or more of their children will never return to church after the graduate..
So within one or two generations the church will be gone.

So again if you Ask the reason why we are loosing so many, it is because They are all taught to think logically. then made to apply this brand of logic to science Vs the Bible. If science proves in their mind that the very first story is false and Jesus references it s if it were 100% literal, then Jesus can not be God and the whole system of faith collapses. meaning we never even get to any of the miracles.

Which is why... This narrative is so important to those who NEED to reconcile a literal 7 day creation with everything evolution says without changing a word in the Bible or changing what evolution says..

And that is the point of this whole thread. If you are one of the 20%ers who does not care what science or "logic" says, and you can still believe in your understanding of the god or your version of the Bible even if Jesus himself tells you youre wrong... then great, run with the 6000 year old earth stuff, or what ever your faith is built on. you do you boo..

However, If you need a way to reconcile science with god in order to maintain your faith this is a biblically accurate way of doing it.

The answer to "why".. IMO.. is simple..
1/ we don't prepare them for the atheistic world of accedemia that they are about to enter and their immursion into it is powerful.
2/ Accedemia is designed to destroy their faith in what they have been taught in our churches and homes.
It's not simply teaching them knowledge and letting them believe what they want to believe.
It's an agenda. It's a plan. It's an attack on the Christian teaching. It's purposeful and organized.
Our "christian raised" young adults are a minority and peer pressure alone is overwhelming. Add the power of fear of not making a passing grade or achieving a degree... they don't stand much of a chance.
Any professors that are strong believers are soon held to task with risks of losing tenure or careers.

 

[JacksBratt]

The universe can be observed and studied. If it is all a miracle, that would not be possible. It is wrong to compare miracles of the bible with the natural laws of the universe. God is not the author of confusion. He does not deceive us by setting up a young universe to only appear old by observation. It is like saying that God buried fossils to poke a joke at modern science.

God can do anything, I am not denying that. However, God does not deceive us. If the universe shows us that it is much older, and the process in planetary development is longer than a week, should we simply outright call it out as false? How naïve! If we can't believe something we can directly study, then how can we trust in a position that is based only on a belief? Are we living in reality?!

You can start a whole new argument about the state that the universe was created. How can you see stars that are light years away when the earth is young.. Or.. God created Adam as an adult... why are we to believe that the trees, animals, plants and such are created as mature.. but not the earth?

There is no place in my belief.. that anything "evolved". IMO, God created it, in six days, as we are told.

Christ said:
John 3:15



15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

We believe in all the miracles of the gospel because our salvation depends on it. What if "believeth in Him" means all that He did? Not just the gospel.

People say that the six day creation is not a salvation issue... Would we believe in all the other things Christ did if they weren't determining our eternal lives?

 

[Jonaitis]

You can start a whole new argument about the state that the universe was created. How can you see stars that are light years away when the earth is young.. Or.. God created Adam as an adult... why are we to believe that the trees, animals, plants and such are created as mature.. but not the earth?

There is no place in my belief.. that anything "evolved". IMO, God created it, in six days, as we are told.

Christ said:
John 3:15


15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

We believe in all the miracles of the gospel because our salvation depends on it. What if "believeth in Him" means all that He did? Not just the gospel.

People say that the six day creation is not a salvation issue... Would we believe in all the other things Christ did if they weren't determining our eternal lives?

You can't expect secular academia to take YEC seriously if it cannot be demonstrated or observed. It defeats the whole argument that it is science at all, which makes it an unscientific position. God made us in His image, and that includes a rational soul capable of critical thought. It seems absurd for God to make no use of it in areas where it is necessary. It is denying a part of our creation. We must be critical thinkers if we want to be strong believers. If we blindly accept something without examining it, then we can't make appropriate judgements. If we have no faith in anything, then we have no hope. We need a balance.

 

[JacksBratt]

You can't expect secular academia to take YEC seriously if it cannot be demonstrated or observed.

Well, they accept evolution and it is not demonstrated or observed. It is speculation

It defeats the whole argument that it is science at all, which makes it an unscientific position.

Same with evolution. Science must be observed and or repeated. Show me one example of a species evolving into a different species... being observed and repeated.

God made us in His image, and that includes a rational soul capable of critical thought. It seems absurd for God to make no use of it in areas where it is necessary.

You mean, for example, using critical thought to accept that a man walked on water to the middle of a sea? Or, that He fed more than 5000 people with two fish and five little loaves of bread? Or hung on a cross until death and had a spear shoved through His heart... Only to show up the next week, walking takling and displaying the scars of His death.... That kind of critical thinking?

It is denying a part of our creation. We must be critical thinkers if we want to be strong believers.

You mean the "strong belief" that it takes to deny the atheistic Darwinian fable of evolution that is based on science that didn't even know about DNA? Belief so strong as to oppose conclusions that mere men arrive at... taking into concidreation that they don't believe in a superior being or designer?

If we blindly accept something without examining it, then we can't make appropriate judgements. If we have no faith in anything, then we have no hope. We need a balance.

To accept evolution without any transitional evidence or repeatable observable proof.. as science demands... Is blind faith.

At least a Christian understands that their beliefs are faith based and that they are, in fact saved by faith alone.

Theistic evolutionists will hold tight to their salvation, which is based on supernatural, otherwise impossible events.. but deny the six days of creation based on the statement that it is "blind faith".


Christ said we are saved by believing in Him. Read this: Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?

In John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote. And one of the passages in the writings of Moses in Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This, of course, is the basis for our seven-day week—six days of work and one day of rest. Obviously, this passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of seven literal days based on the Creation Week of six literal days of work and one literal day of rest.

 

[Jonaitis]

Well, they accept evolution and it is not demonstrated or observed. It is speculation

Same with evolution. Science must be observed and or repeated. Show me one example of a species evolving into a different species... being observed and repeated.

You mean, for example, using critical thought to accept that a man walked on water to the middle of a sea? Or, that He fed more than 5000 people with two fish and five little loaves of bread? Or hung on a cross until death and had a spear shoved through His heart... Only to show up the next week, walking takling and displaying the scars of His death.... That kind of critical thinking?

You mean the "strong belief" that it takes to deny the atheistic Darwinian fable of evolution that is based on science that didn't even know about DNA? Belief so strong as to oppose conclusions that mere men arrive at... taking into concidreation that they don't believe in a superior being or designer?

To accept evolution without any transitional evidence or repeatable observable proof.. as science demands... Is blind faith.

At least a Christian understands that their beliefs are faith based and that they are, in fact saved by faith alone.

Theistic evolutionists will hold tight to their salvation, which is based on supernatural, otherwise impossible events.. but deny the six days of creation based on the statement that it is "blind faith".


Christ said we are saved by believing in Him. Read this: Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?

In John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote. And one of the passages in the writings of Moses in Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This, of course, is the basis for our seven-day week—six days of work and one day of rest. Obviously, this passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of seven literal days based on the Creation Week of six literal days of work and one literal day of rest.

We are all examples of evolution. It has nothing to do with changing species, but a family tree from which a variety of species descend from. In other words, a coyote didn't evolve from a wolf, but they both belong to the same genus that descend from its parent group, Caninae. The farther backward you classify the taxonomy of living organisms, the more living animals today fit in certain groups in regards to characteristics, dna, structure, habitat, diet, etc., eventually narrowing all life on Earth down to single universal common ancestor. You probably believe in adaptation, but how far will adaptation continue over the course of time when certain "kinds" no longer remain looking like its relatives? So evolution is happening right now, you just can't see its long term results yet, but you are looking at the long term results in the present of all living organisms' most recent ancestors. Genetic changes is happening already to the human species too, and has been speeding up in the last several centuries thanks to the advancement in technology. We can observe these changes that may continue to shape what could possibly become sub-species, and another group branching down each sub-species into who knows what. Of course, a long period of time is required for major differences in its diverse posterity, and so we have geological evidence that there was such a length of time to support our discovering how life developed on this planet. So evolution will always continue until life is obliterated from this planet, which, in my opinion, may not happen, especially if we seek a new earth.

What does Jesus walking on water have to do with this discussion? That was a miracle: a supernatural event defying natural laws under human observation. However, if creation can be observed and studied, then it is not necessarily a miracle. Creation does not defy the natural order of things, because it is an organic system. We must recognise the difference. It sounds more like you don't care to learn about the things science has discovered, because it may deny very core elements in your convictions. So now you have force to either avoid the inevitable victory of discovery by clinging to a theological position or admit that there were interpretative problems held by some of our well-respected forefathers. Sometimes tradition can get in the way of seeing the truth, and you know that as a Protestant. Don't let that recognition be limited to the function of the Christian and Church, but even the way Scripture should be properly understood. Augustine is a well-established theologian among Protestants, and yet he held a non-literalist position like many others in his day, but no one bats an eye.

You also seem to believe that Moses was a real figure too. I am not sure about his real identity anymore, but nonetheless, hold "his" writings to be essential to the biblical canon. His story has many elements and motifs found in other parts of Mesopotamian literature. His birth account is nearly identical to the birth legend of Sargon the Great:

“Sargon, the mighty king, king of Akkad, am I.
“My mother was an en-priestess, my father I never knew.
“My father’s brother inhabits the highlands.
“My city is Azupiranu, which lies on the bank of the Euphrates.
“She conceived me, my en-priestess mother, in concealment she gave me birth,
“She set me in a wicker basket, with bitumen she made my opening water-tight,
“She cast me down into the river from which I could not ascend.
“The river bore me, to Aqqi the water-drawer it brought me.
“Aqqi the water-drawer, when lowering his bucket, did lift me up,
“Aqqi the water-drawer did raise me as his adopted son,
“Aqqi the water-drawer did set me to his gardening.
“While I was [still] a gardener , Ishtar did grow fond of me,
“And so far [...] years I did reign as king,
“The black-headed people (that is, the Sumerians), I did rule and govern.”

It is possible that whoever wrote under the name of Moses, God used. However, it may likely be that Genesis is not intended, then, to be taken as a literal account, but one that conveyed Israelite lessons. Creation story contains the significance of the Sabbath. Noah's story contains the significance of clean and unclean animals for sacrifice (Genesis 7:2). Abraham's story contains the significance of Israel's foundation in regard to their right to their homeland and their covenant community. Onan's story in Genesis 38:6-11 was significant to teach the responsibility of a levirate marriage (carrying on your brother's name after his death through his brother's wife). You will find key elements of the Law preached throughout Genesis, long before Moses received them by revelation, establishing the Covenant. In considering this, we must then realise how Genesis should be interpreted in its historical and theological aspects. The problem with modern conservative Christianity is the fact that the position inerrancy and infallibility has hindered honest discussions about the nature of Scripture and its proper end, avoiding obstacles that challenge our bias.

 

[Doran]

In a short paragraph or two could some advocate of theistic-evolution (TE for short) define what you mean by the term in a short paragraph or two? Also,. according to your theory when did physical death enter this world? Thank you.

 

[drich0150]

I feel that if a literal 6-day creation "worked," it wouldn't be difficult in the least to prove. We would clearly see that in God's blueprint. However, we find that it doesn't smoothly fit with the math and models we can base our observations on, and that seems to be a problem. If you need to defend what should defend itself, can it really be true? A literal 6-day creation requires a lot of gymnastics, IMO.

If we cannot accept reality, then do we believe in reality? Or would we rather accept a sort of idealism that is consistent with our doctrinal beliefs? Augustine did not take the account literally, but found rich Christiological meaning in it instead. A safe position to take.

did you read the op or watch the video? It seems you are just assuming my position and giving me a stock opening statement. how about maybe reading the assignment before coming to your final conclusion.

 

[Jonaitis]

did you read the op or watch the video? It seems you are just assuming my position and giving me a stock opening statement. how about maybe reading the assignment before coming to your final conclusion.

My bad.

 

[drich0150]

The answer to "why".. IMO.. is simple..
1/ we don't prepare them for the atheistic world of accedemia that they are about to enter and their immursion into it is powerful.
2/ Accedemia is designed to destroy their faith in what they have been taught in our churches and homes.
It's not simply teaching them knowledge and letting them believe what they want to believe.
It's an agenda. It's a plan. It's an attack on the Christian teaching. It's purposeful and organized.
Our "christian raised" young adults are a minority and peer pressure alone is overwhelming. Add the power of fear of not making a passing grade or achieving a degree... they don't stand much of a chance.
Any professors that are strong believers are soon held to task with risks of losing tenure or careers.

I agree with all of this.. so why not give out kids something that allows them to sustain their faith?