If evolution is true, we don't have problems.

[Strathos]

Except that isn't in the scriptures. No where does God say the world is flat. So that is simply a red herring. It doesn't matter what shape the world is it could be flat, round or like a potato. It's neither here nor there when it comes to the Gospel.

It also never says how old the earth is.

 

[Speedwell]

Your choice to believe whatever you want to believe.
But the matter of evolution vs sin is certainly why the church and belief in God have declined.

Perhaps in churches which teach the literal inerrancy of Genesis as necessary to the doctrine of Original Sin. What about churches which do not?

 

[Speedwell]

I was asking you where sin and the spirit fits in with evolution. God doesn't wish it or in anyway suggest evolution. He outlined that he created in 6 days.

Then why do you ask? Why do you think I must believe it "fits in with evolution?" As far as I am concerned, it fits in with God creating us from some precursor primate just as well as it fits in with God creating us from dust.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But the matter of evolution vs sin is certainly why the church and belief in God have declined.

What is this versus thing? One is a theory about natural phenomena. The other is a theological concept. It's like saying trigonometry vs football.

 

[Speedwell]

What is this versus thing? One is a theory about natural phenomena. The other is a theological concept. It's like saying trigonometry vs football.

It's based on the logical fallacy that man can have fallen into sin only if it happened literally as described in Genesis.

 

[driewerf]

Your choice to believe whatever you want to believe.

Actually no. You don't chose to believe whatever you want. I challenge you to believe that your hand has 6 fingers. it just a choice according to you.

 

[pitabread]

Because it discredits the foundation of the Gospel.

Ironically, that by setting up this dichotomy between evolution (among other sciences) and your interpretation of the Gospel, you've effectively allowed your own beliefs to be falsified.

Never understood why creationists insist on doing this...

 

[pitabread]

He outlined that he created in 6 days.

Then why doesn't the universe, Earth, life, etc., look like it was created in 6 days?

 

[Speedwell]

Ironically, that by setting up this dichotomy between evolution (among other sciences) and your interpretation of the Gospel, you've effectively allowed your own beliefs to be falsified.

Never understood why creationists insist on doing this...

And it's a logical fallacy to boot--which is why I persist in my belief that there must be some other reason why Creationists cling to their belief in a literal Genesis than those usually offered.

 

[coffee4u]

It also never says how old the earth is.

Not the bare dirt covered earth, no. How old isn't even the correct question to be asking since it was made outside of time. But creation week upon it we can know is some thousand of years old. Time did not start until Geneses 1 verse 3. Before that the world was there but formless and empty.

 

[coffee4u]

Ironically, that by setting up this dichotomy between evolution (among other sciences) and your interpretation of the Gospel, you've effectively allowed your own beliefs to be falsified.

Never understood why creationists insist on doing this...

An interpretation means trying o figure out what something means when the meaning is not clear. This is not so with Genesis, but it goes far past that.
God says very plainly that he created in 6 days, the same way he also says very plainly do not steal, do not covert, do not murder.

Creation was a miracle and as such it can't be scientifically analyzed The same way the resurrection of Jesus or walking on water or any other miracle cannot be analyzed. It is outside the realm of science.

 

[coffee4u]

Perhaps in churches which teach the literal inerrancy of Genesis as necessary to the doctrine of Original Sin. What about churches which do not?

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

 

[Strathos]

Not the bare dirt covered earth, no. How old isn't even the correct question to be asking since it was made outside of time. But creation week upon it we can know is some thousand of years old. Time did not start until Geneses 1 verse 3. Before that the world was there but formless and empty.

You see, that's an odd idea that many creationists would disagree with. Usually the interpretation is that God is outside of time, and created time, but the earth was created within time. But when dealing with a highly abstract text like Genesis, there are many possible interpretations.

 

[Speedwell]

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

That explains nothing. How do you suppose churches which do not teach that a literal interpretation of Genesis is necessary to the faith remain firm in essential doctrine (including Original Sin) without it?

 

[pitabread]

An interpretation means trying o figure out what something means when the meaning is not clear. This is not so with Genesis, but it goes far past that.
God says very plainly that he created in 6 days, the same way he also says very plainly do not steal, do not covert, do not murder.

Non-literal interpretations of Genesis go back thousands of years. Not everyone believes that Genesis was intended to be read literally, including early Christian scholars.

Likewise, there are varied interpretations of the ten commandments.

Creation was a miracle and as such it can't be scientifically analyzed The same way the resurrection of Jesus or walking on water or any other miracle cannot be analyzed. It is outside the realm of science.

Sure, the supernatural is outside of the realm of science. But this doesn't change the fact that the resulting creation does not look like it came into existence per a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Effectively, you're arguing for a deceptive universe à la Last Thursdayism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

How do you tell what is "sound doctrine"? If anything that appears to be the sin of creationists. They refuse to learn the basics of science so that they can deny the reality that they do not like. Talk about what their itching ears want to hear.

 

[coffee4u]

It's based on the logical fallacy that man can have fallen into sin only if it happened literally as described in Genesis.

You see, that's an odd idea that many creationists would disagree with. Usually the interpretation is that God is outside of time, and created time, but the earth was created within time. But when dealing with a highly abstract text like Genesis, there are many possible interpretations.

The first day does not occur until God made a light shine upon the turning earth. Before this it was formless and void. If there is a gap or not between those verses can be argued but it's a possibility. The text of Genesis is not abstract. Hebrew poetry and parable had a pattern to it that Genesis does not have. Most of the verses about sin and the effects of sin are not from Genesis but other books of the Bible.
The fact God created in 6 days is from Exodus and that Adam brought in sin is from the New Testament. Not to mention that Jesus told us in the New Testament to believe the words of Mosses. If creation and sin were only found in the first chapter of Genesis that argument would have more to stand on but it isn't, its woven throughout scripture.

 

[coffee4u]

Non-literal interpretations of Genesis go back thousands of years. Not everyone believes that Genesis was intended to be read literally, including early Christian scholars.

Like the other poster you are stuck on Genesis when Genesis is only a small part of it.

You could read only the New Testament and still the message is that God is creator and that sin goes back to Adam.

 

[pitabread]

Not to mention that Jesus told us in the New Testament to believe the words of Mosses.

And did Jesus say this meant a literal interpretation re: 6 days of creation?

 

[pitabread]

You could read only the New Testament and still the message is that God is creator and that sin goes back to Adam.

Yet it doesn't necessitate that Genesis be interpreted literally re: 6 days of creation.