Progressive's view on creation?

[RC_NewProtestants]

It would seem the way that verses Genesis 1:6-7 would be the way a primitive society would explain clouds. They would no that rain came from clouds so they would explain that separation from the water that is on the surface.

Of course you can always say that there was an atmosphere before creation, or you can say that God established the earth as a water form and miraculously kept it in a liquid state. But it seems to me you lose the literal nature of the story. And if you do all these speculations for the purpose of saying the story is literal, it does not seem to serve that purpose.

However it is pretty typical of the way many Christians add so many details to the stories in Genesis and then pretend that with the additions the stories make literal history. It is one of the problems that traditions have caused and distorted our understanding of the stories.

 

[keyarch]

However it is pretty typical of the way many Christians add so many details to the stories in Genesis and then pretend that with the additions the stories make literal history. It is one of the problems that traditions have caused and distorted our understanding of the stories.

Since this IS a SDA sub-forum and I would be crossing the line here to go beyond fellowship posts to debate with you, I will have to end my participation in this thread.
I apologize if I have gone beyond what is allowed in previous posts.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

Since this IS a SDA sub-forum and I would be crossing the line here to go beyond fellowship posts to debate with you, I will have to end my participation in this thread.
I apologize if I have gone beyond what is allowed in previous posts.

don't worry, it's so easy to get into debate on forums like these. Here is a thread in the main SDA section that deals with literal vs non-literal, which has more debate.

http://www.christianforums.com/t4650583-is-genesis-literal-or-a-myth.html

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Yea well who really understands those no debate rules. I don't, what is debate vs. conversation? In summary it seems to me if a person is going to claim the creation story is literal then they have to live within the confines of a literal view. I think that most people can't do that so they speculate and then their speculation becomes incorporated into the so called literal view. It in fact is no longer a literal view however.

 

[keyarch]

Yea well who really understands those no debate rules. I don't, what is debate vs. conversation? In summary it seems to me if a person is going to claim the creation story is literal then they have to live within the confines of a literal view. I think that most people can't do that so they speculate and then their speculation becomes incorporated into the so called literal view. It in fact is no longer a literal view however.

Nice last word after I said I wouldn't debate here. If you're applying it to me, then I have to strongly disagree with how you have categorized my comments.

 

[juicyfroot]

one of my best friends is a creationist turned evolutionist/geologist. I've learned over time that there are some things that we won't understand until God Himself explains them to us. the bible says to "avoid useless contention"...so...
God made everything. Period. No need for arguing because if you don't believe that God made everything, you should quit posting on Christian message boards.

Science can't prove their theories, and Religion can't prove its theories... that's why they say that "IT TAKES FAITH TO BELIEVE EITHER ONE"