HappyPrincess said:
No. The point I am making is: If the world tells you one thing and scripture says differently, which do you believe?
But what scripture says to us depends on how we read it. Currently, as you read scripture, it contradicts something in the world. But as I and other TEs read it, that contradiction does not exist. So it is not a matter of scientific discoveries and scripture being in contradiction, but your personal understanding of how to read and interpret scripture that is in conflict with scientific knowledge.
One question you need to answer for yourself--as lucaspa says---is this:
who is speaking through creation itself?
Was it humans who made the universe? the solar system? the earth? the plants and animals? the rocks and fossils?
Those are basically the same questions God put to Job.
We know the answer. God made all these things. They are God's handiwork. How then can they lie to us?
But who interprets scripture? People do. And we know that people can make mistakes; they can even lie.
So if I need to choose between the testimony of God's handiwork and the fallible human teaching I have received about the way scripture ought to be read---isn't it obvious which one is more trustworthy?
As I said, a BIG one for me is death entering the world with sin. Evolution requires things to die for their "change over time changing one kind into another" philosophy.
Well, you have already had several options presented. Does "death" mean physical death or spiritual death? Was Paul including the death of animals as well as humans in his thinking? Clearly he was not including the death of plants or anything microscopic. Clearly physical death for some species must have been going on in Eden. For God had told Adam and Eve they could eat the fruit of the trees. You cannot eat fruit without killing it. In fact, the fruit and leaves of the trees would have to die in any case as they fell from the trees.
The idea that there was no death at all in Eden, not even of non-human species, simply doesn't stand up to common sense when you consider all the implications.
In the end, will God say that one way was right and one way was not?
No. Why would there be only one right way to read scripture? That's like saying there is only one right way to read Shakespeare. The bible has many facets, and one of them is its magnificent literature. Great literature has the capacity to speak on many levels, and the bible most certainly does that. To restrict it to only one meaning is to deprive it of the capacity to convey to you the fulness of God's message.
How about when one way of reading Scripture leads to people treating each other with respect, and another way of "reading it" leads to them figuring there is no difference?
I am not sure what you are getting at here. What do you mean by "figuring there is no difference?" To me, one way of respecting people is precisely "figuring there is no difference" just because one is a bag lady and one is a movie star. Both deserve respect, because fundamentally, both are God's dear children. In God's eyes there is no difference, and we should not treat them differently because of the superficial differences that don't count with God.
Could responses to the way Scripture is read lead to understanding of it?
You bet! It's great to read what different people say about the same passage of scripture. There is so much richness in scripture that it takes the wisdom and insight of many perspectives to grasp it all. Confining oneself to only one interpretation is like having only one small window to look through instead of several big windows to see the whole panorama.
Are you saying no pastor can get up into the pulpit and preach on Scripture, because anyone can just go out and say it means something different and it doesn't really matter how you interpret it?
Oh, it matters very much how you interpret scripture. Just because there can be many good interpretations doesn't mean there are no bad interpretations. In fact, there can be lots of bad interpretations too. I mentioned already those who twist scripture to support racism and segregation. I have also heard people who think they know scripture and the mind of God justify child abuse. And any Children's Aid Society can tell you horror stories of "Christian" parents who have confined, tortured and abused children, because "the bible says so". "Interpreters" of scripture like Jim Jones and David Koresh were clearly "wresting the scripture to their own destruction" and sadly to the destruction of many others as well.
But you are assuming the creation stories are stories because of what man has said, not because of God's Word. Jesus actually makes it VERY clear in the Bible when he's telling "stories." And he comes back and explains what his stories mean.
No. I believe the creation stories themselves tell us they are stories not history. Yes, Jesus tells us when he is telling stories. He doesn't always tell us what they mean. The point is, that Jesus used stories as a teaching tool. We have to assume then, since Jesus is the Word of God, that story-telling is one way God teaches us---not just during Jesus' life on earth, but from the time we could first understand stories.
Stories are a great way to teach. We remember stories so easily. Think of the parts of the bible you know well as compared to those you don't. Are they not mostly the stories of Jesus, of Genesis, of Moses and David? While the parts you don't know well are the laws concerning sacrifices in Leviticus or the instructions for building the tabernacle in Exodus--the straight-forward, prosaic, absolutely literal and very boring stuff.
Actually, if Jesus mentions an OT character, then I do expect that character to be real because Jesus is God and as God knows what is real and what is not.
So, if God tells a story and later refers to that story, it makes the story real even though God knows it is not?
If you don't even trust what Jesus says...
What makes you think I don't trust what Jesus says? In the passage you referred to, Jesus was speaking about the sanctity of marriage. I believe that. He re-inforced his point by referring to the creation story. His point is valid whether or not Adam and Eve were historical or mythical.
...then I wonder how you determine what is true and what is false in the Bible. What is your ruler? What feels right to you? I can't argue with that.
What is true and false is never determined by what feels right to one's ego. It is determined through investigation of the facts, through sound reasoning, and through prayer and illumination of the Holy Spirit. Again, it makes no difference whether one is intepreting by the principles of literalism or by other principles. Unless one is using a good study discipline one can err. And if one merely interprets to satisfy one's own ego-needs, one is certain to go wrong.
So why did God have 6 days of work and one of rest if it had nothing to do with hearkening back to what God himself did (which is what he says was the reason behind it)
lucaspa covered that nicely.
Oh and I do believe that God used men to write the Bible, this wasn't men making this up. And that he has preserved it down to this day for us for a reason that we might know His will.
Agreed.
Was Christ an "Archetypal man" or a real, living historical figure?
Both. Christ is our example of true humanity, as humanity was intended to be, had we not sinned.
And one could interpret Adam as both too. Jewish mysticism (which Paul was no doubt acquainted with) refers to Adam as archetypal. That may have been where Paul got the concept from.
If Science told me it was impossible for Jesus to come back to life, I wouldn't decide to believe science and disbelieve the Bible that said directly elsewise.
Fortunately, science does not tell you that.
Miracles happen. God works in ways that we can't reproduce. I have no problem with believing this. Or with believing that he has created a world we can explore.
Agreed.
I don't believe science has made the case for evolution.
It has. But I'm not asking you to take anybody's word for that. You need to study it for yourself, and with an open mind.
But I'm not really here to discuss the scientific side of it so much as the Biblical.
Good. I'm more interested in the theology as well. This is not really a science vs religion controversy. It is about Christian faith vs heresy. I consider "creation science" to be utterly bereft of Christian value, an attack on the historic Christian faith and a misrepresentation of scripture. I know many well-meaning Christians adhere to it, and I am sure God respects and honours their faith in him, while sorrowing over their errors. I don't suggest the average Christian who is unaware of the theological issues is jeopardizing his/her salvation by allegiance to this belief. Salvation is grounded in Christ, not in concepts about Eden and evolution. But I have no respect for the leadership of the creation science movement who are knowingly misrepresenting both science and scripture. I have the same feelings about them as Jesus had for the Pharisees.
Then why do they make such a big point that "Just as with one man sin entered the world, so with one man..." ? If the first sin is not a big deal. Did God create us as sinful beings?
Paul doesn't focus on Adam's sin being the first sin. He focuses on Adam being the first sinner--the one who brought sin into being. And on Christ as the one whose perfect righteousness brings an end to the dominion of sin.
We who are in Adam, human as Adam is human, also continually bring sin into being. And in Christ, human as Christ is human, we also overcome it.