Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You believe it is better to doubt Scripture then, because unfortunately for you it is simply what Scripture says.I hope that is an error you have fallen into on your own. It would dismay me to learn that such a thing was actually being taught as doctrine by any Christian church.
Fortunately, millions of Christians know better.
f
They don't disagree, though i think it's a good question anyway.Oh, and if it is so clear why are there two creation stories in the Bible and why do they disagree?
I don't doubt scripture, but I certainly doubt the conclusion you have drawn from that part of it.You believe it is better to doubt Scripture then, because unfortunately for you it is simply what Scripture says.
The creation narrative portrays only itself: the creation.
No, it's not allegorical to evolution.
Just read it.
it says that He made everything, every kind of organism to reproduce after its kind.
Then He formed man in his image from the dust of the earth and blew the breath of life in his nose.
Who knows if there was this good Samaritan one day in history?
Indeed, the story is told to portray what loving your neighbour means.
But Genesis 1 is the narrative of the beginning of our reality, the beginning of time and matter, formed and filled to get what was finished on the 7th day.
It doesn't portray or symbolize anything else than that.
It is only referred to as actual history throughout the Bible.
Now i really don't know how long those first days were, but it had been evening and it had been morning every day of that week.
The 7th day God rested and sanctified that day, the sabbath.
Actually they do disagree. The order of creation differs.They don't disagree, though i think it's a good question anyway.
I think i'll open a topic about it, because i'm interested in the answers people may bring forth.
But in all, there's just very little Scripture to go by.
We are though, when we realise that ToE, to which you choose to subscribe is "atheist naturalism".The question is clear. "Is belief in the craetion story a salvation issue?" Can't get much more clear than that. You are apparently unable to provide a simple answer. If you are not going to answer the question then please get out of the thread.
There are milliosn of Christians who believe the Bible but see the two different creation stories in Genesis as being allegories, not factual. We are not talking about "atheist naturalism."
A statement without any explanation or motivation.No, Genesis 1 is an allegory that shows that God created everything. It is not history.
Theistic evolution and atheist naturalism are two different things.We are though, when we realise that ToE, to which you choose to subscribe is "atheist naturalism".
Where is God in evolution theory? He is not there.
And the case for evolution is very loud, but not strong at all, yet you choose this "atheist naturalism" idea.
I just don't understand, because you must have been pointed towards the case against it and / or the case for creation.
And since God creating has ever so much more explanatory power than dead unconscious processes outperforming allof humanity, why would you stick with it?
Indeed so it seems, but in the garden also plants and trees were created again, and apparently so were the animals, so that Adam could see God's Greatness and name the animals.Actually they do disagree. The order of creation differs.
The creation stories resemble, in structure, the creation myths of surrounding regional cultures. They were written in that format on purpose to be accessible to the people in order to introduce radical new theological ideas, monotheism being the most important, in an otherwise familiar form. That is their most important purpose, as has been recognized by legitimate Christian and Jewish scholars for millennia.A statement without any explanation or motivation.
So then where is God then in your scientific model?Theistic evolution and atheist naturalism are two different things.
God was the force that caused it all to happen.So then where is God then in your scientific model?
I mean, you say that science can explain how the organisms came to be the different kinds, including us.
Because He claims it repeatedly.Exactly how is not believing in a literal six-day creation not trusting God?
Not according to the scientific theory you believe, which by the way has poor evidence and huge gaps and lacks explanatory power.God was the force that caused it all to happen.
Really? Second creation story doesn't say creation in six 24-hour days.Because He claims it repeatedly.
Actually there is a great deal of evidence supporting evolution. Only those opposed to it claim that there is little or no evidence.Not according to the scientific theory you believe, which by the way has poor evidence and huge gaps and lacks explanatory power.
The ones who suggest Genesis can be mistaken for allegory. And this supposed majority of Christian Darwinians is a bigger myth then stone age ape men.Well, I'm suggesting otherwise so I guess that I, like the majority of Christians, am being absurd.
I find the power of God to orchestrate the making of a universe taking 13.74 billion years to date AND forming man literal out of the dirt of the Earth through the evolutionary process FAR stronger than simply crediting God with being a quick fingered, fast talking hedge wizard or prestidigitator as the YEC crowd demands.Hieronymus said:The explanatory power of a creating God is simply much stronger than ascribing it to dead unconscious processes. Isn't that obvious?
Probably as much as any observer and certainly far more than any YEC adherent.Hieronymus said:Or do you have no knowledge of the universe and living nature in particular?
You haven't seen most of it debunked or put in proper perspective, because only fringe YEC goofs make themselves even less credible doing that.Actually there is a great deal of evidence supporting evolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?