One big problem with evolution I see

[HappyPrincess]

Scripture. First, of course, the account in Genesis 1-3. But those who want to believe in evolution have found a way to wave this away already I've found.

Then Jesus' words: (repeated in Matthew 19:4. "at the beginning")
Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." -- certainly Sounds to me more like a literal creation at the beginning of the world rather than something that we are still in the middle of the changing of it.

The explanation for the Sabbath day. Exodus 20:8-11
" 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Hebrews 11:3 seems to even point to today's conflict over evolution -- This is first, before even Abel in the "faith" chapter. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Romans 5:12-21 (the idea of which is repeated in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22,45-47)
"12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

" 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (One man sinning. Not a culture or anything else like that)

For evolution to exist, things had to have been dying for however long, even before there was man. Even before there was a man to sin.

And yet, this verse tells us that death entered the world WITH sin. So there couldn't have been death before sin and the Bible be true. And yet evolution requires death.

For those who are accepting that the scientists know more than Bible (or that the Bible is inaccurate in Genesis) How do you explain away these other references? What caused the first sin that Jesus had to come to redeem us from? Why do we need salvation at all if death has been in the world since the beginning of time and God is just "guiding" as the big bang turned into protoplasm turned into basic lifeforms, etc?

 

[Beastt]

If you insist upon taking the literal word of the Bible as the one and only, last and final word on things, then many known facts will face controversy.

Evolution precedes the Bible.

 

[gluadys]

Scripture. First, of course, the account in Genesis 1-3. But those who want to believe in evolution have found a way to wave this away already I've found.

Actually all your points are "scripture" so you are really only making one point, and that point is: "As I read scripture, it is not compatible with the theory of evolution."

Now the question becomes this: Is the way you read scripture the only way a Christian can read scripture?

And the answer is: No, its not. There are many ways to read scripture. Some are good, some are middling, some are bad, some are so bad we can call them wrong (e.g. those who use scripture to justify racism).

But of the middling to good ways to read scripture, we cannot say that one way is right and one way is not.

You are already aware that there is more than one way to deal with Genesis 1-3, so we needn't go over that.

Then Jesus' words: (repeated in Matthew 19:4. "at the beginning")
Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." -- certainly Sounds to me more like a literal creation at the beginning of the world rather than something that we are still in the middle of the changing of it.

Jesus knew his scriptures. He knew the story in Genesis 1 and the story in Genesis 2. He knew these stories were given so that we might understand God's intentions and learn more about God. Jesus often told stories himself (and since Jesus claims he only does what he sees his Father doing---we can assume that God tells stories too.)

If we assume that the creation stories are stories, how does Jesus speaking about them change them into history? That's like saying that if I speak about the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan to make a point, they must have been real people instead of characters in Jesus' stories.

Just because Jesus mentions an OT story or character, it does not imply that the story is literal history. It just means that Jesus is using the story to make a point.

The explanation for the Sabbath day. Exodus 20:8-11
" 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Again, the writer of Exodus knew the creation story and is using it to make a point. Doesn't imply that the story is history. It may imply (probaby does) that the writer believed it was history, but the beliefs of the writer about the story don't tell us whether or not it was really history.

Hebrews 11:3 seems to even point to today's conflict over evolution -- This is first, before even Abel in the "faith" chapter. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Not at all. Evolution doesn't even come into the picture until after life was created. You need living things to exist before they can evolve. This scripture is speaking of the creation of heaven and earth (the cosmos or universe). The nearest thing we have in science is modern cosmology which is based on quantum mechanics and big bang theory. Both of these are in full agreement that "things which are seen are made of things which do not appear." For example: quarks which are the sub-components of protons and neutrons are not only too small to see. In principle, they cannot be seen.

Romans 5:12-21 (the idea of which is repeated in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22,45-47)
"12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

" 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (One man sinning. Not a culture or anything else like that)

But there is nothing to suggest that the one man cannot be an archetypal man rather than an individual man. This is how the man is presented in Genesis--as Man rather than a man. In the creation story in Genesis 2-3 the creature man in Gen. 2:7 is never given a name (in spite of English translations that do). The word used in v.7 to say "man" (ha-adam) is the same word used through the whole passage.

In his letters, Paul is contrasting the "natural man" (Adam= ha-adam) with the "spiritual man" (Christ) and saying that through the one man came death and through the other came life. And we pass from death to life as we pass from being in Adam to being in Christ.

For evolution to exist, things had to have been dying for however long, even before there was man. Even before there was a man to sin.

Yes. Just as the atonement for sin was made spiritually before there was a man to sin. According to Revelation, Jesus is the Lamb slain "from the foundation of the world". God's time frame and our time frame are quite different. For God, sin in the world was always present since for God the distinctions we make between past, present and future do not exist.

Paul, similarly notes that sin did not truly exist until the law was given, yet men died before the law was made known. The death of animals prior to the existence of actual concrete human sin can be understood the same way.

And in any case, plants had to die before any actual concrete human sin---in order to feed the animals in Eden. So there is no way physical death can be postponed until an individual person eats an individual piece of fruit. The whole story of the Fall is a symbolic representation of how we all fall into sin.

For those who are accepting that the scientists know more than Bible (or that the Bible is inaccurate in Genesis) How do you explain away these other references?

As you see, nothing needs to be "explained away", just explained differently. Christians who accept the findings of science don't need to throw away their bible or any part of it.

What caused the first sin that Jesus had to come to redeem us from?

Jesus did not come to redeem us from the first sin. Jesus came to redeem us from OUR sin.

Whydo we need salvation at all if death has been in the world since the beginning of time and God is just "guiding" as the big bang turned into protoplasm turned into basic lifeforms, etc?

Salvation is not just about saving us from death. It is first and foremost about reconciling us to God and bringing us into God's kingdom.

 

[HappyPrincess]

If you insist upon taking the literal word of the Bible as the one and only, last and final word on things, then many known facts will face controversy.

Evolution precedes the Bible.

So you don't believe the Bible is true?
Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

 

[HappyPrincess]

Actually all your points are "scripture" so you are really only making one point, and that point is: "As I read scripture, it is not compatible with the theory of evolution."

No. The point I am making is: If the world tells you one thing and scripture says differently, which do you believe?

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.

But of the middling to good ways to read scripture, we cannot say that one way is right and one way is not.

In the end, will God say that one way was right and one way was not? 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? Could responses to the way Scripture is read lead to understanding of it?

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?

Jesus knew his scriptures. He knew the story in Genesis 1 and the story in Genesis 2. He knew these stories were given so that we might understand God's intentions and learn more about God. Jesus often told stories himself (and since Jesus claims he only does what he sees his Father doing---we can assume that God tells stories too.)

If we assume that the creation stories are stories, how does Jesus speaking about them change them into history? That's like saying that if I speak about the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan to make a point, they must have been real people instead of characters in Jesus' stories.

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.

Just because Jesus mentions an OT story or character, it does not imply that the story is literal history. It just means that Jesus is using the story to make a point.

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. If you don't even trust what Jesus says... 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.

Again, the writer of Exodus knew the creation story and is using it to make a point. Doesn't imply that the story is history. It may imply (probaby does) that the writer believed it was history, but the beliefs of the writer about the story don't tell us whether or not it was really history.

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)

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.

But there is nothing to suggest that the one man cannot be an archetypal man rather than an individual man. This is how the man is presented in Genesis--as Man rather than a man. In the creation story in Genesis 2-3 the creature man in Gen. 2:7 is never given a name (in spite of English translations that do). The word used in v.7 to say "man" (ha-adam) is the same word used through the whole passage.

In his letters, Paul is contrasting the "natural man" (Adam= ha-adam) with the "spiritual man" (Christ) and saying that through the one man came death and through the other came life. And we pass from death to life as we pass from being in Adam to being in Christ.

Was Christ an "Archetypal man" or a real, living historical figure? The only way this comparison works for me is if BOTH men were real, living historical figures. Or BOTH were just archetypes. You don't change from one type to the other and end up with a oranges to oranges comparison.

There is nothing in this passage to suggest it is anything other than a real, historical man being spoken about. Esp because Christ himself is a real, historical man.

As you see, nothing needs to be "explained away", just explained differently. Christians who accept the findings of science don't need to throw away their bible or any part of it.

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. 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.

I don't believe science has made the case for evolution. But I'm not really here to discuss the scientific side of it so much as the Biblical.

Jesus did not come to redeem us from the first sin. Jesus came to redeem us from OUR sin.

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?

Salvation is not just about saving us from death. It is first and foremost about reconciling us to God and bringing us into God's kingdom.

But we had to be reconciled to God in the first place because we lost that fellowship.

 

[artybloke]

So you don't believe the Bible is true?
Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

I think from the cross I'd assume he was.

However, what he is probably saying is that the evidence that God leaves in the universe - which shows a progress from Big Bang to stars to planets and then on through to the theory of evolution - has to inform our reading of the Bible, rather than the other way around.

Otherwise, God is telling lies in the evidence he's left in the universe. It is possible to read the Bible's creation stories as non-literal, yet still true; therefore, because the evidence of the universe says the above, a non-literal reading becomes the only option.

I don't believe that God tells lies.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Jesus did not come to redeem us from the first sin. Jesus came to redeem us from OUR sin.

Not true. He came to do both.

 

[lucaspa]

Scripture. First, of course, the account in Genesis 1-3. But those who want to believe in evolution have found a way to wave this away already I've found.

First, there are two contradictory accounts in Genesis 1-3. That is a big neon sign that neither should be read literally.

Also remember, evolution is simply the way God created. It's not atheism.

Then Jesus' words: (repeated in Matthew 19:4. "at the beginning")
Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." -- certainly Sounds to me more like a literal creation at the beginning of the world rather than something that we are still in the middle of the changing of it.

Those are two versions of the same account. Look carefully. What is Jesus using Genesis 1-2 for there? He is using it for authority on a theological issue on whether divorce is allowed. Jesus is not substantiating your literal reading, but using the text as it was meant to -- to convey theological messages. The theological message Jesus is imparting is the same whether humans evolved or were specially created, isn't it?

The explanation for the Sabbath day. Exodus 20:8-11
" 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

What you have here is a circle. Exodus came first. IOW, Israel knew God as Creator because He created Israel. In Exodus 20:10, God simply commands the Sabbath. That should have been good enough for the Hebrews. But it wasn't. Genesis 1 was written later, and was specifically constructed so that creation happened in 6 days to give an unnecessary justification for the Sabbath command. Still later, the different sources that make up the Pentateuch were put together into one document by an editor. Exodus 20:11 and a similar verse in Leviticus were inserted into the text to make the justification complete.

Notice that Genesis 2:4 says that the heavens and earth were created in one day, not 6.

Hebrews 11:3 seems to even point to today's conflict over evolution -- This is first, before even Abel in the "faith" chapter. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Why is this against evolution? The organisms we see are made of something that the authors did not see -- natural selection. Thru faith we understand that God created, but not thru science. Science is agnostic. So the verse is pretty accurate there, too.

Romans 5:12-21 (the idea of which is repeated in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22,45-47)
"12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

" 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (One man sinning. Not a culture or anything else like that)

For evolution to exist, things had to have been dying for however long, even before there was man. Even before there was a man to sin.

But is the "death" referred to really physical death? Look at Genesis 2:15-17. God says Adam will "die in the same day" if he eats the fruit. But Adam lived for 930 years. The verse can't be talking about physical death, but spritual. Now, what Paul is doing is constructing a symmetry with the major point that Jesus died for all sins. One man dying for all sins. Paul emphasizes the point and makes up a symmetry by having one man -- Adam -- introduce sin. But the word "sin" doesn't appear anywhere in Genesis 2-3, does it? Jesus dying for your sins is just as valid under evolution as it is under Paul's conception.

For those who are accepting that the scientists know more than Bible (or that the Bible is inaccurate in Genesis)

What does science study? The physical universe or the heavens and the earth, right? Who created the heavens and the earth? GOD, right? So, this dichotomy of scientists "knowing more than the Bible" is simply false. Science also studies God.

What you have done here is make the Bible into a god. Creation is also from God, because God created. But you ignore God there. Ignoring God can't be good, can it?

What caused the first sin that Jesus had to come to redeem us from?

Natural selection. What was the first "sin"? Disobedience to God and doing what they wanted. IOW, selfishness. Well, natural selection can't do anything else except produce selfish creatures. So, we need salvation because selfishness is hardwired into our genes and we can't, by ourselves, be completely unselfish and devote ourselves to another -- even God.

I hope this has helped answer you questions. You don't have to agree, but it shows that theistic evolution does have answers to your questions.

 

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings,

Personally, I find that the one great question that CANNOT be RATIONALLY answered by the Evolutionist or the Aetheist is "What is the 'first cause'?" The best (worst?) is the conclusion that EVERYTHING COMES FROM NOTHING. Now with God, we KNOW He is the "first cause", and thus He is also the "creater God", who brought EVERYTHING into existence and has revealed it to "believers". But we shall always have naysayers who say "There is no God." Or we will have those "without" spiritual discernment, who believe the naysayers and "twist" the Word of God so that black is white and white is black. Needless to say, scriptures speaks plainly to them and their outcome.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

 

[notto]

Greetings,

Personally, I find that the one great question that CANNOT be RATIONALLY answered by the Evolutionist or the Aetheist is "What is the 'first cause'?" The best (worst?) is the conclusion that EVERYTHING COMES FROM NOTHING. Now with God, we KNOW He is the "first cause", and thus He is also the "creater God", who brought EVERYTHING into existence and has revealed it to "believers". But we shall always have naysayers who say "There is no God." Or we will have those "without" spiritual discernment, who believe the naysayers and "twist" the Word of God so that black is white and white is black. Needless to say, scriptures speaks plainly to them and their outcome.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

Evolution does not equal atheism. Darwin addressed this in Origin. Evolution does not eliminate nor confirm the existence of God or a creator. It simply describes what is and what causes the diversity of life on the planet.

 

[lucaspa]

Greetings,

Personally, I find that the one great question that CANNOT be RATIONALLY answered by the Evolutionist or the Aetheist is "What is the 'first cause'?"

Remember, evolutionist and atheist are two separate things. For theistic evolutionists (the only kind here), the answer for First Cause is the same as a creationist: God. That's a belief, not a fact.

The atheist does indeed have an answer because there are currently at least 5 different candidates for First Cause. Only one of them is God. I have listed the candidates for First Cause here: http://christianforums.com/t43923

The best (worst?) is the conclusion that EVERYTHING COMES FROM NOTHING.

That's not necessarily Biblical, Ernie. Creation ex nihilo (from nothing) is a fairly recent invention of Judeo-Christianity. For centuries Genesis 1:2 was looked at with "the waters" as God fashioned earth from pre-existing material.

Now with God, we KNOW He is the "first cause",

We believe God is First Cause. See both the Nicean and Apostle's Creeds. They are very clear in the use of the word "belief". Right now there is no way to falsify any of the candidates for First Cause, so we don't "know".

has revealed it to "believers".

There you have the basis of belief for theists -- revelation. Either personal or that contained in sacred books.

But we shall always have naysayers who say "There is no God."

Probably. Because their personal experience is of no experience. They don't have personal revelation and distrust the revelation in sacred books. Fortunately, we live in a country that is tolerant of different beliefs, so theists and atheists can live in peace each with their personal belief.

Or we will have those "without" spiritual discernment, who believe the naysayers and "twist" the Word of God so that black is white and white is black. Needless to say, scriptures speaks plainly to them and their outcome.

(sad smile) Ah, the old threat against those who don't worship the god you've made out of your literal reading of the Bible. I'm not worried. The First Commandment tells me not to worship false idols. You, OTOH, may need a lot of luck and/or that God is as forgiving as He is advertised.

 

[Jaywalk]

First, of course, the account in Genesis 1-3. But those who want to believe in evolution have found a way to wave this away already I've found.

I'm not willing to wave away all of Genesis 1-3, but I do believe that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a poem and can be interpreted as a peon of praise to God for creating the world. I take 2:4 onward as reportage.

Then Jesus' words: (repeated in Matthew 19:4. "at the beginning")Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Do you know of any evolutionary theory that proposes some kind of human which is not sexually differentiated? That should have happened long before anything vaguely describably as "Man" existed.

The explanation for the Sabbath day. Exodus 20:8-11
" 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

That explains the Sabbath, but it can be argued that the reference back to Genesis 1 does not require a literal interpretation of this passage (i.e., that the intent is to make one day in seven a holy day to commemorate God's work of creation) pushes back to create a need for a literal interpretation of the passage it references.

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

I know there are those who don't believe God created the world, but I don't think you'll find them around here.

Romans 5:12-21 (the idea of which is repeated in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22,45-47)"12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

How would this conflict with evolution? A theist like myself, and pretty much everyone else here, accepts the sinful nature being passed down from Adam, but it doesn't mean that Adam's original creation was not through the means of evolution.

One of my theology professors stated that the only real problem would occur if humanity had not all descended from common stock. This would cause problems for the concept of inheriting sinful nature. However, genetic science has been helpful enough to provide a common ancestor (and quirky enough to call her "Eve") and thus remove this problem.

" 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (One man sinning. Not a culture or anything else like that)

For evolution to exist, things had to have been dying for however long, even before there was man. Even before there was a man to sin.

And yet, this verse tells us that death entered the world WITH sin. So there couldn't have been death before sin and the Bible be true. And yet evolution requires death.

The entire passage argues that since death entered the world with sin by the act of one man (Adam), so it is appropriate that death be conquered by the act of one man (Christ). Since people are still dying, it's not much of a stretch to argue that the "death" meant here is the second (eternal) death of Revelation 11, rather than the relatively inconsequential death of the body.

 

[billwald]

All biological life requires death. Digestion is basically a death process. The people who wrote the Bible didn't know there are invisible critters that live and die in our guts that digest our food for us.

The first commandment is "Multiply and fill the earth." This could not be accomplished inside the Garden.

 

[lucaspa]

The first commandment is "Multiply and fill the earth." This could not be accomplished inside the Garden.

Thanks, Bill. Another contradiction showing we have two separate creation stories!

 

[gluadys]

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.

 

[gluadys]

Not true. He came to do both.

Adam's sin condemns Adam. Our sin condemns us. There is no need for Jesus to redeem us from Adam's sin.

Perhaps you are confusing first sin with original sin.

 

[lucaspa]

So you don't believe the Bible is true?
Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

There are different types of truth. A work or statement does not have to be true in all aspects in order to be "true". My favorite example is outside the Bible (to avoid the emotions involved) and involves Shakespeare's Macbeth. Macbeth is not literal Scottish history. The history never happened. Yet the story does contain truths about human nature: greed, lust for power, corruption by power, honor, justice. Is Macbeth true? Yes. and no. But we don't require Macbeth to be historically true in order to be true about the human condition. I see no reason why the Bible must be historically true in order to be true theologically.

One of the tragedies of Biblical literalism is that it misses so much of the message of the Bible!

 

[lucaspa]

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.

Nicely said. I hadn't thought of the professional creationists as analogous to Pharisees, but I do now!

My only caveat is with "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." While true, I think Biblical literalists/creationists no longer have their grounding in Christ. Rather, they have made the Bible into a god to worship. This is what worries me about HappyPrincess when she advocates the literal reading as the ultimate authority in deciding any issue. This, IMO, is now worship of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the literal interpretation has become "God". This is false idol making and worship. And that is indeed a salvation issue.

So, yes, I do worry that the professional creationists and those Biblical literal pastors have created a salvation issue and are leading their flocks astray.





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.[/QUOTE]

 

[Curt]

Prov 14:12
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
(KJV)

Eccl 12:11-13
11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
(KJV)

Prov 3:5-8
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.
(KJV)

Isa 2:11-17
11 The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
12 For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:
13 And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan,
14 And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills that are lifted up,
15 And upon every high tower, and upon every fenced wall,
16 And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.
17 And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
(KJV)

 

[Curt]

Gen 1:1-31
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
(KJV)

Gen 8:22
22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
(KJV)

Exod 20:10-11
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:
(KJV)

Exod 31:15-17
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
(KJV)

Lev 25:3-4
3 Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof;
4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.
(KJV)

Job 40:15
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
(KJV)

Job 41:1
1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
(KJV)

Heb 4:3-4
3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
(KJV)

Pretty definite that God didn't have time for much of that evolutions gobledy goop. But like proverbs says man will insist on leaning to his own understanding. Don't have to be no rocket scientist to see that God didn't have a bit of trouble writting what was a day, and what was a year. I would be quite an achievement for some one to work 6,000 years before they could rest.