Why should christians trust evolutionists?

[miamited]

hi Christopher,

I appreciate the laugh, but don't worry, I'm already a part of the one true church. I'm a born again child of God trusting wholly and solely in Jesus' sacrifice for sin and covering of righteousness. I hope to see you there.

Hi artybloke,

You probably have a different translation of the Scriptures than I do, but if I'm not mistaken it was Jesus who spoke about divorce not being a part of God's plan of marriage since the creation, although many versions translate it 'beginning'. Try, just for laughs, reading Mark 10 and 13. In Matthew 19 Jesus clearly tells us that God created them male and female in the beginning and I'm firmly convicted that Jesus knew the 'beginning' was the 'beginning' we read about in the 'beginning'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Papias]

Chris wrote:

However, just so you can be at peace, let me inform you that I do not deny that millions of jews were murdered by the nazis. I do not know the exact figure, nor am I particularly interested in controversies about it.

In any case, I fail to see the relation with Creationism.

Thanks for indulging me, and fair enough.

I have talked about it with the priest who says the Traditional Mass where I go normally.

This, along with other things in your posts, supports the idea that you are really looking at this, getting information from various sources. Bravo! You may also benefit from reading the Christian opinions given at this site: http://biologos.org/

He says he believes in intelligent design.

That makes sense. Be aware that "intelligent design" is a very flexible term, which can mean anything from nearly standard creationism to theistic evolution. For instance, in the book that led to the dover trial, "ID" simply was substituted for "creationism" in the same book (they just replaced the words and republished the book). Creationists in the 80's simply used the idea of "intelligent design" to attack evolution, and promote creationism, and in those uses, it was pretty much just a front for creationism.

In the middle are the many people, perhaps including your priest, who accept much of evolutionary science, while maintaining a clear role for God, varying by person, calling that approach "intelligent design".

At the more theistic evolution end are those who accept most to all of evolutionary science, and see "intelligent design" as simply the idea that God is supporting and causing the whole process- just like theistic evolution supporters like myself. Such a view can be completely consistent with everything the scientists say about the evidence. For instance, our Holy Father is in that direction, seeing God as perhaps the source of the beneficial mutations that have allowed us to be here, as well as supporting the natural world all the time as in hebrews 1:3 and John 5:17.

Interestingly, Michael Behe, who was very prominent in defending "intelligent Design" in the 1990s, and who is often seen as the main person behind intelligent design, is Catholic and fully supports the idea that all life has descended from a common ancestor, including the evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors. He simply sees God behind the whole process, both guiding and helping evolution. This is stated clearly in most of his books - I could probably dig up a quote if you care.


Papias

P. S.

You wrote:

......Creation. I find it strange that most of the fellow catholics I know do not take this position, even though this is what all catholics believed for nearly 2000 years.

It's worth pointing out that this is simply false. There were plenty of Catholic church fathers that realized that one need not take a literal reading of Genesis, including Origen and St. Augustine. It's true that none of them fully described evolution itself, just as none of them described heliocentrism, atomic theory, or germs. Shernren may know them better.

 

[Jase]

Thank you Ted, for that impassioned defense of Creation. I find it strange that most of the fellow catholics I know do not take this position, even though this is what all catholics believed for nearly 2000 years. It is interesting that in US many protestants remain undeterred by secular evolutionism, whereas the catholics have all but given in.

The Church also believed the Sun revolves around the Earth for a very long time. The church is usually proven wrong.

I just want to be in the Truth.

Then stop believing things that aren't true.

 

[Christopher Fleming]

Hello Papias,

you sound very informed. It´s nice to learn that there is a catholic involved in this. Yes, I had heard a lot about Michael Behe, but I didn´t know he was catholic.

I do not go along with your assertion that catholics believed in some form of evolution prior to Darwin. The reason I say this is what I read in my Bible, the Douay-Reihms translation of the Vulgate version. If you have a copy, check this out. The years from the Creation are given at the start of the chapters. According to this Bible, the most widely used catholic Bible until Vatican II, the Earth began in the year 4004 B.C.

Now, if this is written in the margins of the most used English catholic Bible for over 300 years, how can you say that catholics didn´t believe it? If it had been in any way controversial, these annotations would never have been added, or they would have cautioned the faithful that it was all mere speculation. Far from it; the dates are given with absolute confidence that they are factual.

 

[philadiddle]

Evolution treats human as an animal. So whatever animals do, we are also justified to do. I don't think any evolutionist can argue against that.

Morality doesn't come from evolution, it comes from our current society and how we function as a social species. I'm surprised you still make these kind of comments after almost 10,000 posts. I guess some people just don't have any desire to learn the material they are debating.

 

[philadiddle]

Hello,

I´m getting interested in this topic at the moment. Since all the threads on the "origins" sub-forum seem to have drifted away from the issue, or else are dead, I decided to start another one.

My reason for being interested in examining the claims of creationists, who up till recently I never would have taken seriously, is that I have come to distrust evolutionists. It is not so much a scientific problem, as a theological problem. I have witnessed darwinian evolution used as an argument in favour of all sorts of moral abominations; adultery, homosexuality, abortion, eugenics, euthenasia, etc. Looking at the history of philosophy, seeing where nazism and Planned Parenthood came from, it is clear to me that they owe much to the theory of evolution. Perhaps without it their organizations would never have got off the ground, because it gave them "scientific" credibility.

I do not want to become paranoid, thinking that everyone is trying to deceive us. However, for me as a catholic, conspiracy theory is a dogma of the faith. The original conspiracy is that of Satan, who has been plotting the ruin of souls and seducing the world since the beginning of mankind. So I see it as logical that he uses everything at his disposal. If evolution does the trick, why wouldn´t he want evolution in all the classrooms around the world, pushing belief in the Word of God into ever smaller circles?

I also observe that ALL atheists use evolution as an argument against christianity. Why is this? If it made no difference, why would atheists think it hurts christian belief to argue darwin´s theory? I have come to think that if you take God out of the creation equasion, you are left with nothing but random nothingness. This is exactly what atheists believe in; chance, but no intelligence.

Lately I have little trust in what is called the "scientific community". I am VERY sceptical about the GLobal Warming hype. I think it is all a huge lie, designed firstly to get money out of the taxpayer, and secondly to exert greater governmental control over nations, in preparation for a New World Order. Anyway, this is just to say that my scepticism towards scientists, no matter how well known or prestigious, allows me to entertain the possibility that evolution may be another big scam, put into circulation and perpetuated by the masons who rule in the shadow, in order to gradually erode belief in Jesus Christ. Before you all call me a conspiracy freak, please note that I am not asserting this categorically. I am simply saying that I consider it a POSSIBILITY. I have no way of proving it, and therefore cannot assert it.

Finally, although perhaps this will mean little to protestants, all the Fathers of the Church believed in a creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). The Council of Trent teaches that we should never contradict the UNANIMOUS teaching of the Fathers on any subject pertaining to Revelation. St. Augustine had doubts about the exact meaning of the 6 days, but he certainly never implied that God used pre-existing material to make the Earth and the animals. The theory of evolution is totally foreign to all the Church Fathers, and thus is not an acceptable interpretation of Genesis for a catholic, as far as I understand.

I would appreciate any comments, as long as they are polite and intelligent. And please do not go down the catholic-bashing road. Go to another sub-forum for that! Thank you.

I highly recommend you read "Only a Theory" by Kenneth Miller (a catholic). It's one of the best books I've read on religion and evolution. It's also quite short, so it wouldn't be a big commitment.

 

[Christopher Fleming]

I highly recommend you read "Only a Theory" by Kenneth Miller (a catholic). It's one of the best books I've read on religion and evolution. It's also quite short, so it wouldn't be a big commitment.

Thank you very much for the recommendation. I will certainly look into it.

God bless you.

 

[artybloke]

The first couple of chapters in the Bible talk about creation (among other parts of the Bible too).

Metaphorical language? Like "evening and morning", "the ___ day", or in Exodus when God specifically says that He made everything in six days and rested on the seventh and therefore we should too? That kind of metaphorical language?

Sorry, but St Augy doesn't hold the same merit as God's word does.

In Christ, GB

Yes, like "evening and morning..." Yes, like Exodus. All metaphor. Sorry you're too blinded by modernist thinking to see it.

And JESUS is the Word of God. Not the Bible.

 

[artybloke]

Man is flesh, but God is Spirit.

God became flesh and dwelt among us. Or don't you believe in the Incarnation?

Why trust evolutionists? Because unlike creationists, they don't tend to tell lies.

 

[Papias]

Artybloke, it seems to me that Chris is honestly looking into all this. He's not one of those troll type creatonists we get all the time, who deny evidence and can't listen to other interpretatoins beyond their own. I'm sure we agree there is a lot to understand - it's not simple. I guess I'm just suggesting he be given a little room to work on this.

In Faith-

Papias

 

[Papias]

Chris wrote:

Hello, Papias

you sound very informed.

Thank you.

I do not go along with your assertion that catholics believed in some form of evolution prior to Darwin.

Oh, it’s always good to ask for evidence for any assertion.

I’m not claiming that Catholics believed in some form of evolution, just that it was recognized by some that Genesis did not require a literal 6 day creation, nor a creation completely by poofing things into existence.

My assertion is that the Catholic church’s current position of allowing theistic evolution is consistent with previous positions of the Catholic church on our origins. The Catholic church has always maintained that God did the creating, and did not require a literal view of Genesis to explain how God did that creating. That has been true for the history of the Catholic church, and is true today.

On a side note, our book of wisdom includes the verse 19:19, which does sound like it describes evolution clearly (see below, first whales and then vertebrates), but that a single verse like this means little to me, and contextually doesn’t have a clear meaning anyway.

Wisdom 19:19

For the creatures of the land were turned into creatures of the water: and the creatures that swam in the water moved upon the land.

The reason I say this is what I read in my Bible, the Douay-Reihms translation of the Vulgate version. If you have a copy, check this out. The years from the Creation are given at the start of the chapters. According to this Bible, the most widely used catholic Bible until Vatican II, the Earth began in the year 4004 B.C.

Yes, I see that. I’m not disputing that many Catholics believed in a young earth type creationism – sure many, probably most, did for centuries - there simply wasn't much evidence out there yet. What I am saying is that there has always been a diversity of views in the RCC, and that it has never been required – and that marginal notes put there by a publisher are hardly authoritative. For instance, compare these topics:

On the idea that germs cause disease, the DR and other Catholic Bibles never state that – quite the opposite, whenever a cause is given for a disease, it’s always demons. No early pope has ever spoken ex cathedra on the topic, and the church position for most of its history, up to modern times, has been that of demons causing disease. In modern times, evidence has shown that diseases are often caused by germs, and germ theory has been accepted – but still, not required of Catholics.


On the theory of gravity, the DR and other Catholic Bibles never endorse gravity – quite the opposite, genesis makes it clear that the moon and such are placed up in the sky by God, not controlled by gravity. No early pope has ever spoken ex cathedra on the topic, and the church position for most of its history, up to modern times, has not included gravity. In modern times, evidence has shown that gravitational theory is well supported, and gravitational theory has been accepted – but still, not required of Catholics.


On the idea of heliocentrism, the DR and other Catholic Bibles never state that – quite the opposite, many verses describe the ancient Hebrew cosmology of a flat, immobile earth circle by the sun. No early pope has ever spoken ex cathedra on the topic, and the church position for most of its history, up to the 1400s has been geocentrism. In modern times, evidence has shown that heliocentrism is correct, and heliocentrism has been accepted (after all that trouble in the 1600s) – but still, not required of Catholics.


On the idea of evolution (common descent), the DR and other Catholic Bibles never state that – but leave some room for it by verses such as Ws 19:19, John 5:17, and Heb 1:3. No early pope has ever spoken ex cathedra on the topic, but church fathers have spoken both for and against a literal reading of Genesis. The church position for most of its history, up to modern times, has been mostly that of a young earth, but not completely. In modern times, evidence has shown better evidence for evolution than for germ, gravitational, and even heliocentric theory, and evolution has been accepted, even supported by the Pope – but still, not required of Catholics.


Now, comparing all those, it seems to me that there is a stronger historical Catholic basis for accepting evolution than there is for germ theory, heliocentrism, and gravity. It seems that the main reason a Catholic would accept the others while rejecting evolution is because it is more culturally acceptable to do so.


All of these underscore a great strength of the Catholic church, that being that we listen to all of God’s communication to us, including that in his scripture, from his Vicar here on earth (our Holy Father), and what he tells us through his creation – the evidence from science. (If you want to get into all that evidence, we can, but Ken Miller and others are better at that).

I hate to suggest more reading when you have a huge list (between my mention of biologos, and Philadiddle’s mention of Ken Miller’s book), but the Feb 17 blog post on the biologos blog (page down here Science & the Sacred | The BioLogos Forum) is very good, even though it only talks about a tiny slice of genetic evidence.


Also, I'll copy below a couple relevant quotes from St. Augustine and Origen.

Enjoy!

Papias

From the church father Origen, around 200 AD:


For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

From the Great Saint Augustine, who rejected the idea that the creation "days" in Genesis were literal, 24 hour days in his book The City of God, comes another passage:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
​

Though Augustine did favor a young earth, he did reject the literal reading of Genesis, the idea that the "days" were days as we know them, and the idea that evidence from the real world should be ignored.
​

 

[good brother]

Yes, like "evening and morning..." Yes, like Exodus. All metaphor. Sorry you're too blinded by modernist thinking to see it.

So in Genesis, when it repeatedly says "evening and morning, the ___ day", everytime it says that, it's meant metaphorically? And when it says that He separated the light from the darkness, and called the light day and the darkness night, that's all metaphorical?

I hope you don't use that kind of language (calling the light part of the Earth's 24 hour rotation cycle a "day", or the dark part of it "night"), someone will surely think you are just talking metaphorically! And don't tell your sweetie you will see her in the "evening" after work, she'll think you are just talking metaphorically!

You must think then that honoring the Sabbath day was not a literal honoring of it, but a metaphorical honoring, no? God must've meant that if we work six metaphorical days then we should take the seventh metaphorical day off, right? And when the Bible says that anyone who works on the Sabbath shall be put to death, let me guess, that's only a metaphorical death for them?

And just for clarification's sake, what kind of language would YOU use if you wanted to make people understand a creation week that you performed was a literal week of seven 24 hr days?

And JESUS is the Word of God. Not the Bible.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16
​

That would make it (the Bible) the WORDS of God.

Don't get me wrong, Jesus is the Word, John 1 tells us so. But the words of God recorded in the Bible MUST be accurate and truthful as they are breathed by Him. Since He is Truth (Jesus, who is God stated that He is the Truth), then He cannot tell a lie and His recorded words MUST be true.

In Christ, GB

 

[philadiddle]

So in Genesis, when it repeatedly says "evening and morning, the ___ day", everytime it says that, it's meant metaphorically? And when it says that He separated the light from the darkness, and called the light day and the darkness night, that's all metaphorical?

I hope you don't use that kind of language (calling the light part of the Earth's 24 hour rotation cycle a "day", or the dark part of it "night"), someone will surely think you are just talking metaphorically! And don't tell your sweetie you will see her in the "evening" after work, she'll think you are just talking metaphorically!

It's called poetry. It's a repeating stanza that's rooted in the creation myths of the surrounding cultures.

You must think then that honoring the Sabbath day was not a literal honoring of it, but a metaphorical honoring, no? God must've meant that if we work six metaphorical days then we should take the seventh metaphorical day off, right? And when the Bible says that anyone who works on the Sabbath shall be put to death, let me guess, that's only a metaphorical death for them?

Why must they think this? Different parts of the bible use different literary styles and devices.

And just for clarification's sake, what kind of language would YOU use if you wanted to make people understand a creation week that you performed was a literal week of seven 24 hr days?

This is begging the question.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16

That would make it (the Bible) the WORDS of God.

Jesus spoke in parables all the time. Do you take them all literally? If not, how can you trust Him?

Don't get me wrong, Jesus is the Word, John 1 tells us so. But the words of God recorded in the Bible MUST be accurate and truthful as they are breathed by Him. Since He is Truth (Jesus, who is God stated that He is the Truth), then He cannot tell a lie and His recorded words MUST be true.

Out of curiosity, can you please tell me what Genesis 3:15 means? I ask because I'd like to know how you understand the bible.

 

[good brother]

It's called poetry. It's a repeating stanza that's rooted in the creation myths of the surrounding cultures.

So, the Bible just has a "creation myth"? Okay........

Why must they think this? Different parts of the bible use different literary styles and devices.

So, Exodus is talking about taking a literal day off after a literal six days of work, but the certain act it's referencing is only a metaphor? Why and how do you come to that conclusion?

This is begging the question.

Begging the question or not, exactly what kind of descriptive language would YOU use if you wanted to convey to the reader a literal week made of literal days?

Jesus spoke in parables all the time. Do you take them all literally? If not, how can you trust Him?

I take their lessons literally. Much of the Bible is HISTORICAL too. Do you take King David as a literal person? Was Abraham a metaphor pr a real person? Was Cain and Abel metaphors or literal historical people? Did the walls of Jericho really fall down or is that a metaphor? Was Jesus born of a virgin or is that not to be taken literally? Did Jesus really walk on water? Did He really calm a storm with a wave? Did He really turn water into wine? Did He really heal people or was that just a metaphorical healing? Did He literally raise people from the dead? Did He Himself literally rise from the dead? Will He literally return?

So many people want to dismiss the Genesis account because Jesus spoke in parables, but what they aren't willing to look at is ALL the LITERAL and PHYSICAL miracles He did when they are comparing His work to Creation week. Why is that? Could it be that if they admitted that Jesus did in fact work science denying, nature overriding miracles that maybe, just maybe, He performed the same kind of miracles in the creation of everything and He meant what He said and said what He meant when it was recorded in Genesis?

Out of curiosity, can you please tell me what Genesis 3:15 means? I ask because I'd like to know how you understand the bible.

It's called one of the first prophecies concerning the literal advent of Jesus. Another of the first prophetical hints toward Jesus is that after the Fall, God slaughtered an animal to take the skin of it to cover Adam and Eve's sinful nakedness. That is exactly what Jesus did, died so that we may be covered in His holiness and in His righteousness to cover our sins.

Why? Do you think that just because there is a prophecy there that it can't be taken in literal context? What about Genesis 2:4?

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
​

The above verse would seem to say that Genesis is a recorded historical account of when the Earth and heavens were made by God. I am curious to see what you would say about that.

Anyway.....

So, I answered your question, why don't you answer mine now about what kind of language you would choose to describe literal events in a literal week made up of literal days.


In Christ, GB

 

[Jase]

Artybloke, it seems to me that Chris is honestly looking into all this. He's not one of those troll type creatonists we get all the time, who deny evidence and can't listen to other interpretatoins beyond their own. I'm sure we agree there is a lot to understand - it's not simple. I guess I'm just suggesting he be given a little room to work on this.

In Faith-

Papias

When they start a new thread about evolution and say things like the moral abomination of homosexuality, it's hard to not view the poster as a fundie troll.

 

[philadiddle]

So, the Bible just has a "creation myth"? Okay........

That is the way those cultures communicated what the important truths about the present were.

Begging the question or not, exactly what kind of descriptive language would YOU use if you wanted to convey to the reader a literal week made of literal days?

If my intention was to give an historical account of what took place I would have dropped the poetic devices used in Genesis and added a whole lot more detail.

So many people want to dismiss the Genesis account because Jesus spoke in parables, but what they aren't willing to look at is ALL the LITERAL and PHYSICAL miracles He did when they are comparing His work to Creation week. Why is that? Could it be that if they admitted that Jesus did in fact work science denying, nature overriding miracles that maybe, just maybe, He performed the same kind of miracles in the creation of everything and He meant what He said and said what He meant when it was recorded in Genesis?

Nobody here is dismissing the genesis account, they are interpreting it differently than you. The type of binary thinking that you are approaching theology with will give you a completely flawed approach to systematic theology.

It's called one of the first prophecies concerning the literal advent of Jesus. Another of the first prophetical hints toward Jesus is that after the Fall, God slaughtered an animal to take the skin of it to cover Adam and Eve's sinful nakedness. That is exactly what Jesus did, died so that we may be covered in His holiness and in His righteousness to cover our sins.

Then why didn't he just say that? It says that the serpent will bruise our heels, and we will bruise his head, but now you're telling me that's not literal. According to your own logic that must mean you are dismissing that part of the bible and you now have no basis for taking any part of the bible literally, since it is obviously completely arbitrary to you.

 

[good brother]

If my intention was to give an historical account of what took place I would have dropped the poetic devices used in Genesis and added a whole lot more detail.

But what kind of language would you use? What are some of the words you would have used instead of what was used if you wanted to convey to readers a literal week?

And you say you would have put more detail? If the intention of the story you were writing was to show that "A" you created everything, and "B" that you wanted to save your creation from eternal death, how far in depth could you go with every single story that happened since the beginning of time and still want the people to carry around a copy of your book?

Nobody here is dismissing the genesis account, they are interpreting it differently than you. The type of binary thinking that you are approaching theology with will give you a completely flawed approach to systematic theology.

Then why didn't he just say that? It says that the serpent will bruise our heels, and we will bruise his head, but now you're telling me that's not literal. According to your own logic that must mean you are dismissing that part of the bible and you now have no basis for taking any part of the bible literally, since it is obviously completely arbitrary to you.

You missed a whole bunch of my last post. Should I repost my questions to you or will you go back and answer them?

In Christ, GB

 

[Christopher Fleming]

When they start a new thread about evolution and say things like the moral abomination of homosexuality, it's hard to not view the poster as a fundie troll.

Jase, you call me a "fundie troll" beacuse I said homosexuality is an abomination. I do not know exactly what this means (although it does not sound good!), but perhaps in the light of this verse:

And thou shalt not lie with mankind as one lieth with a woman: it is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22)

you should consider God a "fundie troll" too?

 

[philadiddle]

But what kind of language would you use? What are some of the words you would have used instead of what was used if you wanted to convey to readers a literal week?

And you say you would have put more detail? If the intention of the story you were writing was to show that "A" you created everything, and "B" that you wanted to save your creation from eternal death, how far in depth could you go with every single story that happened since the beginning of time and still want the people to carry around a copy of your book?

The flaw with your question is that it assumes that creation happened in a week. That's what beggin the question is. Your second paragraph here is actually a valid question though. Let's say I wanted to show that "A" I created everything, and "B" that I wanted to save my creation from eternal death. In addition it was a culture that thought that different parts of the universe were made up of dead gods, there are many gods, there are 6 days related to the gods of 6 planets, and they thought the universe was a giant ocean with a solid dome over it, in which were the sun, moon and stars. If that was the case I would describe creation in a way that made sense to them. I would make it clear that there was one god, I would make it clear that the stars were a creation, and not gods, I would make it clear that there are not 6 days, and using the seventh day of rest makes the process holy according to their beliefs about numbers. I would describe a solid dome seperating the waters of the universe and having stars in it. I would also use a poetic style that was meaningful to them. Of course, how I made the universe isn't detail that is necessary, because they wouldn't have understood it anyways and would have tossed it out.

You missed a whole bunch of my last post. Should I repost my questions to you or will you go back and answer them?

I cut out all those other question because they are seperate topics. Do you interpret Psalms, Romans, and Revelations all in the same way? Probably not. Just like how the creation account can be interpretted isn't the same way we interpret the story of Jesus.

Earlier you said "the Bible MUST be accurate and truthful as they are breathed by Him". You also said:

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
​

The above verse would seem to say that Genesis is a recorded historical account of when the Earth and heavens were made by God. I am curious to see what you would say about that.

But when asked about Genesis 3:15 you described something that it didn't say at all. Why aren't you taking God at His word? It very clearly describes the relationship between the serpent and mankind, didn't God mean what He said? Please don't sidestep this as it is directly on topic.

 

[good brother]

The flaw with your question is that it assumes that creation happened in a week.

This is a great place to start. Let's ask the question: How long did creation take according to the words of the Bible?

There was evening and there was morning, the first day.
There was evening and there was morning, the second day.
There was evening and there was morning, the third day.
There was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
There was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
There was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
​

Is that all the Bible says about that length of time that it took to create everything? NO, The Bible describes IN DETAIL what constituted the day time and what constituted the night time. Let's take a look:

God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”
​

So God called the light time day and the darkness He called night. But wait, is that all He ever said about it? NO! In Exodus 20 He commanded His peple to do JUST LIKE HE HAD, and take the seventh day of every week off to rest from the work they had done earlier that week during those first SIX days!

Yeah, I can see the absolute arrogance behind my "assumption" for a literal week.

That's what beggin the question is. Your second paragraph here is actually a valid question though. Let's say I wanted to show that "A" I created everything, and "B" that I wanted to save my creation from eternal death. In addition it was a culture that thought that different parts of the universe were made up of dead gods, there are many gods, there are 6 days related to the gods of 6 planets, and they thought the universe was a giant ocean with a solid dome over it, in which were the sun, moon and stars. If that was the case I would describe creation in a way that made sense to them. I would make it clear that there was one god, I would make it clear that the stars were a creation, and not gods, I would make it clear that there are not 6 days, and using the seventh day of rest makes the process holy according to their beliefs about numbers. I would describe a solid dome seperating the waters of the universe and having stars in it. I would also use a poetic style that was meaningful to them. Of course, how I made the universe isn't detail that is necessary, because they wouldn't have understood it anyways and would have tossed it out.

It sounds as though you are more about a man creating a god out of some older myths and stories, and less as though you believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

I cut out all those other question because they are seperate topics. Do you interpret Psalms, Romans, and Revelations all in the same way? Probably not. Just like how the creation account can be interpretted isn't the same way we interpret the story of Jesus.

Might I remind you that it was YOU who brought up Jesus telling parables? Then, when I asked you if you believed all of the supernatural, unexplainable, science denying, laws of nature overriding miracles that He performed, all of a sudden "we can't interpret the story of creation the same way we interpret the story of Jesus". Looks like you got called out....and lost the argument.

Earlier you said "the Bible MUST be accurate and truthful as they are breathed by Him". You also said:

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
​

The above verse would seem to say that Genesis is a recorded historical account of when the Earth and heavens were made by God. I am curious to see what you would say about that.

But when asked about Genesis 3:15 you described something that it didn't say at all. Why aren't you taking God at His word? It very clearly describes the relationship between the serpent and mankind, didn't God mean what He said? Please don't sidestep this as it is directly on topic.

Yes, I DID ask you about Genesis 2:4, why don't YOU respond to that question? I answered yours, why won't you answer mine? That would be great.

Thank you in advance.

In Christ, GB