Question From A New Christian

Nathan Poe said:

Does it?

Or does it contradict the way you choose to read and interpret the Bible?

Click to expand...

It's not about interpreting, it is literal, otherwise the whole bible may as well be taken as some kind of metaphorical blabber.

Nathan Poe said:

Why would it take him six days? Is that any less stupid?
Repetition of a key line or phrase is common in poetry and oral tradition. Genesis was both.

Click to expand...

How do you know that it is poetry? Were you there

h2whoa said:

However, I can assure you that there was nobody present to accurately document Creation. Therefore they can't have written down what was happening, as it happened. They had to rely on what they were told. And if God did not wish to go into complex quantum physics and astrophysics to explain to relatively simple shepherd folk how He created it all, is it not conceivable that He summarised it in a metaphor.

Click to expand...

God is who inspired Moses to write Genesis, why would God want to inspire someone to write a bunch of lies. God wouldn't want to make the first book of the bible - a very important one - hard to understand, he would just put it straight.

Genesis account = Truth

Whether literal history or non-literal metaphor or figurarive language, the Truth is still there. To say that something must be historically accurate to contain God's Truth is a very strange concept.

h2whoa said:

What I want to know, is there room for my belief in God and Jesus to believe Evolution? Does creation have to be taken literally or is it possible it was a metaphor to give people in the pre-science age a general picture of how things began?

You see, I believe that science and religion can actually co-exist. Just as the Computer Programmer uses code to create an application, I think that the Laws of science are like God's computer code to make this application (the World) work.

Am I alone in that belief?

H2

Click to expand...

I'm actually surprised that you asked this question, being from the UK. Perhaps if you came from the Bible Belt it would seem less strange, but in my personal experience the vast, vast majority of people I met who are Christians also accept the theory of evolution. But yes I would agree with those above that you can still take the whole of the Bible as being truth, but that the Genesis account, Noah's flood etc being seen as metaphorical in nature.

What I want to know, is there room for my belief in God and Jesus to believe Evolution?
MMMMmmmm *Clears throat and steps up to podium*


Sorry, but just so you know God did not make Adam from a monkey. And despite popular beleif that the days mentioned in the creation story represent eras, they infact represent 24 hour DAYS. I've always known that evolution was incompatible with the creation account, but I did leave room for a possibility of a millions of years old world. But the more research that I did into the matter of the "days" mentioned in Genisis the more it became apparent that they were in-fact DAYS. The problem with alot of religious philosophies (of different Christian denominations) is that people want to be able to interpret the Bible so that it can fit with their views, when in fact the true nature of the words in the Bible can only be revealed in truth by the Holy Spirit, thus saith the Bible. The Bible says that the word of God is as foolishness to the unsaved, because they lack the Holy Spirit in their lives to help them UNDERSTAND the Bible.

But just for the sake of appliance to both beleivers and unbeleivers, I'll go ahead and say that we should take the Bible at face value until it really becomes necessary or apparent that there MUST be another interpretation, Revelation is an example of where on must tread lightly between literal and symbolic. There are also many other "MIGHT BE" interpretations that float around, that even I toy with the idea of, in the Bible, but I never claim that my view of that interpretation MUST be right. I leave room for the truth, in which I will seek out the Holy Spirit to reveal to me the true nature of the Scriptures.

But As for the interpretation of Genisis' "days" (which is an unnecessarily big issue that could have been avoided if people would have taken the Bible for what it said without trying to incorporate desired interpretations) the word day is rendered "yom" which is the Hebrew word meaning a 24 hour day. Also you don't have to look just at Genisis to know that it was a real day. The creation days are also mentioned as 24 hour days many times in the scripture. But many people say that the people in the Bible who spoke of the "Genesis days" as "24 days" had merely misinterpreted the scripture and what it said. This was a plausible theory... up until you take a look at mount Sinai where God once again said from his own mouth that he had created the world in 6 days. Can God misinterpret himself? Ha! Hardly! The idea that the days in Genesis could have been eras was something that I was willing to accept the possibility of, but ultimately the Bible wins out in the credibility of its face value by meaning what it says.

Please tell me what you think of this arguement. Thnx.

But Cybershark, you don't seem to be considering another alternative:

Days does, indeed, mean 24 hour days, but the whole thing is meant to be read non-literally. Figuratively, allegorically.

It is TRUTH, of course, since it is God's Holy Word.

If it was just a question of YOM, then that would be one thing. But most of us Christians who accept evolution do not base our reading of Genesis 1 and 2 on a day=age basis.

We also do not place man's knowledge over God's Word.

We are also led by the Spirit.

We are not "worldly" christian compromisers.

We are similar to those Christians back in the late Renaissance who said, "hey, now, maybe that scientist Galileo is right about this earth around the sun stuff, and our literal interpretation of Scripture is simply wrong. Maybe we shouldn't actually condemn this guy of heresy for saying something that contradicts our human reading of Scripture, the guy may be right!!!!"

It took a while for the rest of the Christians to come around and agree that their literal reading was wrong and accept what science was telling them. Amazingly, the Church did not come to an end because they had to accept that their literal interpretation of Scripture was in error.

Your right, God didn't create Adam from a Monkey because Man did not evolve from a monkey.

If the only way to interpret genesis is a 6 literal day creation. Then the bible is wrong or God is trying to decieve us. Do you really want to be suggesting that?

The bible also says (or at least modern versions of the bible say) that men lived to be 900s years old. The basis of most YEC timelines. Unforturnately, these number are based on a conversion of old numbering systems (someone around these parts said it was Base60) to modern numbering systems.

How should we treat that?

Your right, God didn't create Adam from a Monkey because Man did not evolve from a monkey.


Exactly.



If the only way to interpret genesis is a 6 literal day creation. Then the bible is wrong or God is trying to decieve us.

How so?
How did you get to this conclusion in light of your first sentance?


P.S. I Got to drive home (I'm at school now) and I'll be back on in about 15 - 20 minutes, hopefully.

Man evolved from a common ancestor of the monkey.

Cybershark5886 said:

Your right, God didn't create Adam from a Monkey because Man did not evolve from a monkey.


Exactly.



If the only way to interpret genesis is a 6 literal day creation. Then the bible is wrong or God is trying to decieve us.

How so?
How did you get to this conclusion in light of your first sentance?


P.S. I Got to drive home (I'm at school now) and I'll be back on in about 15 - 20 minutes, hopefully.

Click to expand...

Not following your reasoning here.

Are you one of those people who beleive in the Bible and the creation story but are an "incorporationist" with evolution?

The bible also says (or at least modern versions of the bible say) that men lived to be 900s years old. The basis of most YEC timelines. Unforturnately, these number are based on a conversion of old numbering systems (someone around these parts said it was Base60) to modern numbering systems.

First off how in the wolrd would anybody know that? We cannot find the original manuscripts of the bible (our oldest only dating from 1 century A.D. dead sea scrolls) and how could they determine what kind of numbering system that Moses would use? And unless this was a practice up until the late 1800s B.C. (thus throwing off alot of our historical timeline data) then that couldn't even begin to be even considered as a possibility.

Second off, in Genesis after the "decay of the nations" leading up to the flood God said that he would make man's lives 120 years because of their wickedness (he shortened it). This takes on a consistantly quite literal manifestation even up till today, the oldest man who has lived since reaching only 114. I say the number of the people ages were litteral years. But if you want to get technical the jewish years only have 360 days in them, leaving room for a small discrepancy. There are a few examples in the Bible though where God extended peoples lives because of their obedience to him though. So I'm not saying that it's not possible that any one has or will live past 120, I just beleive that they won't go far past if they do. And if they do then I'll definately credit their long life to a blessing of God according to his promise of long life in the Bible.

Cybershark5886 said:

Not following your reasoning here.

Are you one of those people who beleive in the Bible and the creation story but are an "incorporationist" with evolution?

Click to expand...

No, he is pointing out that you are letting your ignorance of evolution show. Evolution does not say Man evolved from monkeys.

I believe the theistic evolutionist position must deny a literal Adam.
Paul's teaching on resurrection links Adam and Christ.
If Adam was not a literal man, was the resurrection or Christ literal?


1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:45

So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit

"incorporationist" never heard that term before. Its generally called theistic evolutionist. and no, im not a theistic evolutionist.


It is not known whether they are really based off base 60, but it is a possibility. If the stories were taken from older stories from sumaria then the base 60 error would make sense, since the sumarians and babylonians used a base 60 system instead of base 10.

No, he is pointing out that you are letting your ignorance of evolution show. Evolution does not say Man evolved from monkeys.

I apoligize for being general. But while I'm at it how bout I say that man didn't evolve period. God created Adam from the ground. Just as the Bible says.

joelazcr said:

I believe the theistic evolutionist position must deny a literal Adam.
Paul's teaching on resurrection links Adam and Christ.
If Adam was not a literal man, was the resurrection or Christ literal?


1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:45

So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit

Click to expand...

Now, you do know that the Hebrew word "Adam" means simply "Man" or "mankind", do you not?

Now, you do know that the Hebrew word "Adam" means simply "Man" or "mankind", do you not?

It means Man, yes, as well (with slight modification) as Woman.

But the singularity and individuality of Adam as a person is well defined in the scriptures.