I may give evolution a shot.

[paulewog]

One thing.

Genesis is a historical book. It's written liek history.

If you start making out the first part to be a myth, then be consistent - make the whole book a myth.

Oops... there goes the flood, there goes Abraham, there goes a whole bunch of stuff....

 

[seebs]

The idea that it should be interpreted as literal history was not consistent throughout the history of Christianity, or Judaism for that matter. I'd point out that, if you want to know how to understand Genesis, you might be better off asking the Jews than the Christians, simply because they've been interpreting it in the original text for a very long time.

One thing I recommend is Augustine's work on Genesis. It communicates a great deal of what Genesis means, and how we can understand it if we assume that God's telling us something we need to know, not reciting historical trivia of minimal relevance.

 

[Ark Guy]

Seebs, the early christians took Genesis as literal.


To claim otherwise is just plain and simple ignorance.

We've been over this time and time again. Examples of the early christian and biblical verses have been presented.

 

[Ark Guy]

It seems that we have reached the following conclusions:

1. We have resolved that the word "day" can mean a literal day or a figurative age. It also seems possible that Paul wrote in accordance to his time, where mythological beings and historical beings are treated as one and the same. Any more thought on this one?
2. We seem to agree that it did suddenly come in at one point. Here's how I can illustrate that: Growing up, I used to have computer games where I loved to design things. One of them was a race car game, where of course I had the chance to design race tracks. I designed endless scores of them but rarely played on a given track more than a few times before becoming bored and moving onto the next one. However, one day I designed one that was simply the ideal racetrack. It was simple but entertaining, it had few thrills but was challenging, and was short but played like a fairly long track. IIRC, I enjoyed this track so much that I never designed another one; I spent the remaining life of the game almost exclusively racing that one track. Maybe that's how God dealt with humans, as he may have caused all kinds of species to evolve, but none that could have a genuine relationship with him, until we came along. Then things changed.
3. Those who have addressed this issue believe that Abraham is the oldest historical figure in the bible. This makes sense. For one, Matthew, the literalist gospel, starts Jesus' genealogy with Abraham. Also, God made his Covenant of Israel with Abraham; why would he not start with Noah or someone earlier?

Keep the responses coming. This is slowly starting to make sense.

Your speculation is interesting, BUT, that is not what the bible teaches.

 

[Risen Tree]

Heh. I don't recall the social nudity thing, no. Sounds like a fun debate.

http://www.christianforums.com/t30497

 

[Risen Tree]

Seebs, the early christians took Genesis as literal.


To claim otherwise is just plain and simple ignorance.

We've been over this time and time again. Examples of the early christian and biblical verses have been presented.

I do not doubt this. However, the early churches were not perfect; otherwise, Paul would not have needed to write his letters to them from time to time.

FYI, I am not considering rejecting Christianity; I am simply reviewing my beliefs on a particular subject.

 

[Risen Tree]

Another milestone has been achieved today. I talked to my parents today about this subject and implied that I was considering accepting evolution. Their response was that as long as I believe that God is at the center of the process, they were cool with my decision.

Thanks Mom & Dad! It's nice to know that if I do accept evolution, that's one fight I won't have to worry about.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

That is good to hear.

 

[seebs]

Seebs, the early christians took Genesis as literal.


To claim otherwise is just plain and simple ignorance.

We've been over this time and time again. Examples of the early christian and biblical verses have been presented.

Augustine.

Is he not early, or not a Christian? He did take Genesis as "literal", but what he meant by it, and what you meant by it, are totally different.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/religiousstudies/alaffey/Augustine-Genesis.htm

Augustine
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of ani-mals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a dis-graceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

 

[Risen Tree]

Anyone who would like to discuss specifically the scientific aspects of this, feel free to do so here: http://www.christianforums.com/t75308

If you have any further comments on the theological issues, please chime in; I am all ears.