Creation OR Evolution

[Quemtal]

Hi everyone. I stumbled across this site quite by accidence, though I’m terribly glad I did. It’s a lively and open site in which one may expound one’s views, and may hear myriad other opinions.
Reading many of the discussions however, something shocked me: the number of members who seem to believe in evolution/long-age earth and yet call themselves Christians. I’m new to the site, so maybe this issue has been explicitly dealt with elsewhere (if so, please inform me); but if not, it’s one I would like to raise. I’m a Christian, and only a young one at that (eighteen-years-old). The world constantly bombards us with long-age earth points of view, and I must choose whether to believe these or not. I choose to base my thinking upon the infallible Word of God—that God said what He meant to say. If God meant to say He used evolution and millions of years, He would have written Genesis very differently.
Below I’ve given just a few reasons (there are many more) why I believe that to be a Christian on MUST believe in a literal Genesis to be a Christian.
I would just like to hear what others think about this topic. What are your views, beliefs, &c?

Some people say that the Genesis account of Creation is only an allegory or a metaphor. If this is so, a new translation of the Bible is necessary:

‘Then the Lord God formed the metaphor from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the metaphor became a living creature’ Genesis 2.7

‘Through one Metaphor sin entered the world…’ Romans 5.12

‘Enoch, seventh from a Metaphor’ Jude 14

‘The son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli… Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Metaphor, which was the son of God.’ Luke 3.23-28

‘Thus it is written, “The first Metaphor became a living being; the last Metaphor became a life-giving spirit.”’ 1 Corinthians 15.45

Would you consider such a translation to be accurate? I hope your answer is no. So if the Bible doesn’t say this, why do some Christians?
Without a literal belief in Adam, there is no literal belief in Jesus, which is absolutely necessary to be saved. The truths of the Gospel are reliant upon the HISTORY of Genesis 1-11. Without a first Adam, there can be no last Adam! An allegorical or metaphorical reading of Genesis is incompatible with the Gospel. And anyway, how metaphorical could we be? If you don't take 'the first man Adam' literally, how is it you can take 'GOD CREATED the first man Adam' literally?

Millions of years and evolution place death before the Fall. But death cannot have occurred before the fall, otherwise (yet again) the Sacrifice od Christ is negated.

As Christians, we must follow the example of Christ. But Christ was not an evolutionist (I know, it didn't exist then as it does now). Also, he wasn't a long-earther (they did exist then). When Jesus was asked about marriage (Matt. 19.3-6), he quoted Genesis 1.27 and 2.24. Jesus knew that without the history of Genesis, then there was no foundation for His teaching--and without the teachings of Christ, there is no Christianity.

Many read the Bible by reading into it. They put thoughts between the lines, thoughts that are not in God’s Word. And as a result there are evolutionists who call themselves Christians.
So please let’s read the Word for what it says, not what we want or expect it to say. Let’s allow the Bible to shape our view of the world, and not let the world shape our view of the Bible. Let’s keep in mind the words that first deceived Man, the words of Satan in the Garden, ‘Did God really say…?’ If we try to add to God’s Word as did Eve, then we too will fall. Remember Paul’s plea in 2 Corinthians 11.3, ‘But I’m afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.’
Here’s an exercise to try: First, read Proverbs 1.5-6, ‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not in your understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him…’ Then, read the Creation account in Genesis, but lay aside all outside thoughts, all your own ideas and notions. Read it, not INTO it.
Thank you for bearing with me so long (if you made it this far). I know it’s a long post, but I thought it necessary, and still there’s so much I’ve left out. I want to hear your thought and opinions on this matter. Thank you.

[juliod]

If God meant to say He used evolution and millions of years, He would have written Genesis very differently.

Hear hear! I support your point of view entirely.

DanZ

[bdbthinker]

Below I’ve given just a few reasons (there are many more) why I believe that to be a Christian on MUST believe in a literal Genesis to be a Christian. ........Many read the Bible by reading into it. They put thoughts between the lines, thoughts that are not in God’s Word. And as a result there are evolutionists who call themselves Christians.

INDEED!
Welcome to the boards Quemtal !

[Quemtal]

Wow! I posted this issue because I thought there wer Christians who had strayed from the Bible. But the only responses so far have been from and agnostic and an athiest, interesting.

But still. Great to hear from you ALL -- Christian or not. The issue is for every one and any one.

Juliod and bdbthinker, thank you very much for your positive replies.

[YEC]

Quemtal,
Well said.
Many of those points I have argued.

I have always wondered... when it comes to "some" Christians how it is that they can deny the six day creation performed by Jesus Christ. I suppose they think modern science has proven it to have been scientifically impossible. So they make it a myth.

Then they turn right around and tell you that a dead man stiff from rigor-mortis had the ability to come back to life on the third day... despite that this event is also considered as scientifically impossible.

I have asked why do they believe in one then deny the other? Why is one a myth and one considered as a fact by these christians?

It makes me wonder how they can believe that the same guy who brought himself back from the dead on day 3 didn't have the ability to bring life to Adam and Eve as per the Genesis account.

[perfessor]

The world constantly bombards us with long-age earth points of view, and I must choose whether to believe these or not.

Just like I must choose to believe that the sky is blue because of diffraction of light, or that water flows downhill because of gravity.

I choose to base my thinking upon the infallible Word of God—that God said what He meant to say. If God meant to say He used evolution and millions of years, He would have written Genesis very differently.

When you choose to use the word "infallible", you are imposing a human concept onto your god-concept. Let me ask you this - assuming for the sake of argument that a bronze-age semi-nomadic tribe of ex-slave goatherders were actually God's chosen people, and that God wanted to explain things to them, what words would he use? Do you think the Hebrews had it in their vocabulary to understand the speed of light, quantum (or even Newtonian) mechanics, molecular biology? No, he would have to explain it in a way they could understand. Do you see why "infallible" is a ridiculous word?

Below I’ve given just a few reasons (there are many more) why I believe that to be a Christian one MUST believe in a literal Genesis to be a Christian.

You know, I used to be a Christian when I was your age. I was happy believing that Jesus was real, that God could be prayed to, that spiritual truth was attainable. I believed that I was a Christian because I listened to Jesus, followed his examples (when I could). Then people like you came along and told me that I was a lousy Christian because I believed that spiritual truth and scientific truth could coexist. Silly me! That's why I'm not a Christian anymore.

Without a literal belief in Adam, there is no literal belief in Jesus ...

Words fail me...

Millions of years and evolution place death before the Fall. But death cannot have occurred before the fall, otherwise (yet again) the Sacrifice of Christ is negated.

But only Humans fell, right? What about animal death? Also nonexistent? Are animals also being punished for Eve's mistake? Do they have souls that can be saved? Is Jesus their savior, or do they have their own? Or did animals evolve, but not Humans?

This is a strange theology you are spinning here - the "Sacrifice of Christ"? But he was God, right? Created everything? Unlimited powers? It would seem that some temporary pain, and a resurrection, are more of a magic trick than a sacrifice. Because if he was God, he sacrificed nothing.

I want to hear your thought and opinions on this matter. Thank you.

Welcome to the forum, Quemtal. I'm sorry if I seem a little rough - but you did ask for my thoughts.

[jwu]

The world constantly bombards us with long-age earth points of view, and I must choose whether to believe these or not. I choose to base my thinking upon the infallible Word of God—that God said what He meant to say.

No, what you believe is not that, but in your own fallible interpretation of what might be God's word.
If God created the world and everything else, then the world is God's work. Well...God's work says that it's a lot older.
In case of doubt i'll rely on the work.

Below I’ve given just a few reasons (there are many more) why I believe that to be a Christian on MUST believe in a literal Genesis to be a Christian.

I believe in a literal Jesus but not in literal Genesis...am i not a Christian?

Would you consider such a translation to be accurate? I hope your answer is no. So if the Bible doesn’t say this, why do some Christians?

Let's take a look at matthew 4:8 then:
"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"

You apparently would translate it that way:
"Again, the devil taketh him up into an metaphor, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;"

If you can "translate" this part of the description of Jesus' life that way (and you certainly do, because no such mountain from which one can see all the kingdoms of the earth can be seen...the earth is a sphere after all), why not Genesis?

But death cannot have occurred before the fall, otherwise (yet again) the Sacrifice od Christ is negated.

Why?
Jesus sacrificed his life for us a long time ago...why do we still die then, physically, if the whole business was about physical death?

jwu

[YEC]

perfessor

When you choose to use the word "infallible", you are imposing a human concept onto your god-concept. Let me ask you this - assuming for the sake of argument that a bronze-age semi-nomadic tribe of ex-slave goatherders were actually God's chosen people, and that God wanted to explain things to them, what words would he use? Do you think the Hebrews had it in their vocabulary to understand the speed of light, quantum (or even Newtonian) mechanics, molecular biology? No, he would have to explain it in a way they could understand. Do you see why "infallible" is a ridiculous word?

This concept falls apart when one understands that if God used evolution to form man He could have easily said that from the animals He formed man. These people may not have understood quantum physics...but the concept of evolution isn't all that difficult especially if explained to them by God.
But the Word of God didn't put it that way. The Word of God tells us that from the dust the Lord God formed man...not from an animal.
Then the Word of God tells us that from Adams rib, Eve was formed which certainly isn't anything close to evolution.

Now all of a sudden "infallible" isn't such a ridiculous word after all.

[YEC]

perfessor:
You know, I used to be a Christian when I was your age. I was happy believing that Jesus was real, that God could be prayed to, that spiritual truth was attainable. I believed that I was a Christian because I listened to Jesus, followed his examples (when I could). Then people like you came along and told me that I was a lousy Christian because I believed that spiritual truth and scientific truth could coexist. Silly me! That's why I'm not a Christian anymore

Baloney.
Young Earth Creationist Understand full well that both science and the bible get along quite well and can coexist.

I'll give you 1/2 a point concerning some of the miracles. Some miracles leave "scars" that can be studied scientifically. An example would be radiometric halos caught in the granite that shows a very rapid formation which agrees more with special creation than uniformatarism.

Another example would have been imposible then but possible now...that is to have taken a sample of the water prior to Jesus changing it into wine and then a sample of the wine after it was changed from water and scientifically examining both.

The bible seems to indicate that during/after the flood of Noah the continents moved rapidly forming the mountains of today.
Besides finding marine life fossilized on top of some of these mountains, some of those same mountains also contain recumbent folds consisting of several strata...Now we all know that when you bend hard rock strata they snap, crackle and pop.
But if the sediment is still somewhat soft from a recent flood deposit it has the ability to bend and fold...with out the snap, crackle and pop. This is what we see.

Your problem perfessor is that you have been interpreting science from the wrong angle on a lot of scientific iissues.

Then again that's your freedom to do.

[Jose]

Welcome to the fray, Quemtal!

I choose to base my thinking upon the infallible Word of God—that God said what He meant to say. If God meant to say He used evolution and millions of years, He would have written Genesis very differently.

I have two concerns about this way of stating it. First, we know pretty well that the bible was put onto paper, and then translated periodically over the years, by people. While the word of God may be infallible, the hand of man is not. Did they really write it down correctly?

Second, if I were God (ha!) I wouldn't begin to tell people Important Things in a language they would be unable to understand. I'd use their language, and their understanding of how things work. If I told them today, I'd say, "look guys, after the big bang and the coalescence of matter into stars and planets and stuff, I found it inordinately fascinating to watch what happened. Danged if there weren't some chemical reactions occurring in one wet spot on Earth where there was some silica-rich clay that served as an organizing center. Wow, that was cool! As I watched, these reactions got more organized, and started repeating. Pretty soon (well, soon for me--let's say this was on the second "day" that I was watching; I didn't keep track of time back then the way you guys do now) these chemical reactions got trapped in little greasy bits, and formed primitive versions of what you now call cells. Well, you know the rest. Self-replicating things--living things--don't ever replicate perfectly, so there is always variation among living things. The cool part about this is that some of the variants actually do a little better than others. This was really fun to watch, as different groups of things, in different places, eventually became different from each other. This kind of thing happened over and over, and after a while there were lots and lots of different kinds of living things.

"I was a little surprised when it turned out that some of these lilving things started eating some of the others, let me tell you! Nasty little things. Still, it's what happened, and I wanted to see where this would lead, so I kept watching. Then--and you won't believe this, because it sounds so weird--one of 'em ate another one, but the danged food creature escaped being digested! They developed a kind of symbiosis (I like that word, don't you? Kinda rolls off the tongue real smooth-like.) Over time, these things transferred a lot of their DNA to the nucleus of the cell that swallowed 'em, so if you look at them now, you'll see just the remains of the original DNA in mitochondria. Did I tell you that they're the things you call mitochondria? I forget things like that sometimes. Big words, you know. I wish we didn't have to use them, but you guys seem to have this need to invent jargon for everything you do.

"Well, all of this stuff kept going on. DNA is pretty remarkable stuff, you know. Cells replicate it pretty darned well, but even so, it's imperfect. That's where mutations come from, and the diversity that makes it possible for some guys to grow better than other guys. Well, you're working on that, and I don't want to spoil the punchline, so I won't tell you which mutations happened when. I'll let you figure it out on your own, 'cause that's the kind of puzzle you guys like. Well, I gotta run. Me and the missus have a lunch date with my old roommate over on beta prime. Keep in touch. Toodle-oo."

But, he told us a long time ago. People didn't know about chemistry or cells or DNA. So, he had to tell the story in terms they'd understand, and that would make sense to them. He would have expected us to figure out, later, that the stories were aimed at the people he talked to, and that we should keep up-to-date on our interpretation.

As I see it, Christians have divided themselves into two main groups (gazillions of groups, really, but two main families). There are those who believe that God gave us directions on how to live, in the guise of a group of stories about the olden days, from which we must derive our own understanding. Then, there are those who believe that we must hold to the original text and claim that any new knowledge Must Be Wrong.

Why do I not follow the teachings of the latter group? Well, for one, because that particular interpretation is presented to me by humans, who claim that they know what God meant. Why doesn't anyone else know? Or, more precisely, why do so many other flavors of Christians, who have different interpretations, claim that their particular version is really God's Word? Does anyone really know? Does anyone really have a hotline to God, so He can tell them what each verse really means? It doesn't seem like it.

It seems to me, that each of us needs to read the Bible and interpret it for ourselves, and not simply swallow what someone else tells us. Furthermore, it seems inconceivable to me that what the Bible says would be wholly incompatible with the Earth itself, which, as perfessor notes, is God's Creation. If both are God's Word--one written, the other physical creation itself--then they must tell the same story. Where they don't seem to match, I'll go with the physical reality, and consider the text to be the way most text is--open to interpretation.