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.
Creation OR Evolution
Moderator: Moderators
Post #31
I don't know about that, but here's a more detailed look at what some of these Christian churches think:Do you think that list represents a majority (as measured be the number of adherents) of Christian churches?
Luthern World Federation Statement
Statement from the United Presbyterians
Pastoral Letter from Episcopal Bishop Sims
Statement from Presbyterian Church
Yup, and the leader of that group publicly supported evolution. I'm sure many are familiar with his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996, when he stated that "Truth cannot contradic truth." This is briefly summarized in the following:The Catholics are the largest single group...
From: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/relig ... /1990.html1996: Pope John Paul II
(Reconciliation)
Pope John Paul II endorses evolution. John Paul II's papal letter proclaims there is no essential conflict between evolutionary science and the world's largest Christian faith. By distinguishing between body and spirit, his predecessor Pius XII opened the door for Catholic acceptance of evolution. Now, John Paul II goes a step further: "It is indeed remarkable," he writes, "that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
Post #32
Thanks Aximili
That's agreat quote too...
That's agreat quote too...
No evil atheist conspiracy there,... unless the pope is in league with Satan!Papa wrote:"...The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
Post #36
Actually, the EAC (Evil atheist conspiracy) has a website.No evil atheist conspiracy there,... unless the pope is in league with Satan!
http://www.thamus.org/eac/
They have pretty good news, for instanceOur primary goals are simple:
We want to undermine the USA's entire moral, political, social, judicial, and legislative structures.
We want your kids to be atheists.
We want to steal your child's soul.
We want to kill God.
Evolutionary Link Found Between Humans, Creationists
It's all in good fun though.
-
Dilettante
- Sage
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Spain
Post #37
I am really sorry if I'm repeating myself too much, but Quemtal, the Bible does not say anything until it is interpreted by someone. Your literal interpretation is just one among many possible interpretations. It is by no means the only one, let alone the correct one.
And no, I don't know which one of the others is the most correct--I only know a literal interpretation makes little or no sense at all. I do know we have brains and God probably wouldn't want us to disconnect them while reading the Bible. Common sense tells us that a six-day creation is impossible because the sun and stars were created on the fourth day, according to Gen. 1: 14... but it makes no sense to believe in literal days before that, in the absence of the sun. It seems pretty straight-forward to me...
It also makes no sense that God had to take a rest. Can God get tired? Does God take a two week or a four week vacation? Those are clear anthropomorphisms.
The Bible (from the Greek plural noun meaning "books") is like a patchwork quilt made up of many fragments from many different authors, and as such, it contains numerous contradictions. Without leaving Genesis, you can see that there are two different narrators yuxtaposed. If not, how come Adam and Eve are created twice, once at the same time and as equals, and then Adam first and then Eve is made from the man's rib? Was that an early example of human cloning?
Trying to believe that the Bible is literally true in all details is like trying to bang a square peg into a round hole. It can be done, but it makes no sense.
And no, I don't know which one of the others is the most correct--I only know a literal interpretation makes little or no sense at all. I do know we have brains and God probably wouldn't want us to disconnect them while reading the Bible. Common sense tells us that a six-day creation is impossible because the sun and stars were created on the fourth day, according to Gen. 1: 14... but it makes no sense to believe in literal days before that, in the absence of the sun. It seems pretty straight-forward to me...
It also makes no sense that God had to take a rest. Can God get tired? Does God take a two week or a four week vacation? Those are clear anthropomorphisms. The Bible (from the Greek plural noun meaning "books") is like a patchwork quilt made up of many fragments from many different authors, and as such, it contains numerous contradictions. Without leaving Genesis, you can see that there are two different narrators yuxtaposed. If not, how come Adam and Eve are created twice, once at the same time and as equals, and then Adam first and then Eve is made from the man's rib? Was that an early example of human cloning?
Trying to believe that the Bible is literally true in all details is like trying to bang a square peg into a round hole. It can be done, but it makes no sense.
Post #38
Dilettante wrote:
Ah, so there is such a thing as a literal interpretatio, only it runs contary to your beliefs?......
Interesting thing to say...Isaac Asimov (biochemist, author, athiest, evolutionist) wrote: 'And in man is a three-pound brain, which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe'. And yet he claims that the 'most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe' randomly mutated from pond-slime, which grew by chance out of nothingness.
Jesus said we should love Him not only with all our mind, but also with all our heart and soul, and willingness to comprimise the Word of God is not doing this. And besides, the Word is comprehensible even for the simpleton (Ps. 119.130).
Common sense hey? Well, this is the point--that to have faith in God's Word is to base our thoughts, and common sense, on it. So let's look at it Biblically.
We know the first three days were equal in length with the remaining days. The Hebrew word for day used is yom. The word day is qualified by number, and the phrase 'evening and morning'. This is the same for all creation days, and so, contextually, all must be of equal length.
Also, on the first day, God said 'Let there be light!' (Gen. 1.3). Revelation 21.23 tells us that the Sun is not needed, for there shall come a time when God is that light.
God didn't have to, he chose to. When God does something, it is for our benifit, not His. He was illustrating something, and He really wanted to emphasise it. Read Exodus 31.12-17 to see what God was demonstrating.
Do you believe in God? Then you must believe in His word. It is not of men, but of God. Paul wrote 'And we thank God continually because, when you recieved the Word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God, which is at work in you who believe' (1 Thes. 2.13). Psalm 30.5-6 says 'Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, or He wil rebuke you and prove you a liar'. Read 2 Tim. 3.16-17
I disagree. Truth is not subjective--the Bible says something even if no one read it. I accept that my reading is an interpretaion, but understand what I mean by literal. I mean one in which my thoughts have as little influence over the reading as possible, where I read what is ays, not what I expect it to say because of outside opinions. By literal I mean an interpretaion as based upon the text, rather than my interpretaion [/i]acting upon the text.the Bible does not say anything until it is interpreted by someone. Your literal interpretation is just one among many possible interpretations. It is by no means the only one, let alone the correct one.
I only know a literal interpretation makes little or no sense at all
Ah, so there is such a thing as a literal interpretatio, only it runs contary to your beliefs?......
I do know we have brains...
Interesting thing to say...Isaac Asimov (biochemist, author, athiest, evolutionist) wrote: 'And in man is a three-pound brain, which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe'. And yet he claims that the 'most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe' randomly mutated from pond-slime, which grew by chance out of nothingness.
God probably wouldn't want us to disconnect [our brains] while reading the Bible.
Jesus said we should love Him not only with all our mind, but also with all our heart and soul, and willingness to comprimise the Word of God is not doing this. And besides, the Word is comprehensible even for the simpleton (Ps. 119.130).
Common sense tells us that a six-day creation is impossible because the sun and stars were created on the fourth day, according to Gen. 1: 14... but it makes no sense to believe in literal days before that, in the absence of the sun.
Common sense hey? Well, this is the point--that to have faith in God's Word is to base our thoughts, and common sense, on it. So let's look at it Biblically.
We know the first three days were equal in length with the remaining days. The Hebrew word for day used is yom. The word day is qualified by number, and the phrase 'evening and morning'. This is the same for all creation days, and so, contextually, all must be of equal length.
Also, on the first day, God said 'Let there be light!' (Gen. 1.3). Revelation 21.23 tells us that the Sun is not needed, for there shall come a time when God is that light.
It also makes no sense that God had to take a rest.
God didn't have to, he chose to. When God does something, it is for our benifit, not His. He was illustrating something, and He really wanted to emphasise it. Read Exodus 31.12-17 to see what God was demonstrating.
Trying to believe that the Bible is literally true in all details is like trying to bang a square peg into a round hole. It can be done, but it makes no sense.
Do you believe in God? Then you must believe in His word. It is not of men, but of God. Paul wrote 'And we thank God continually because, when you recieved the Word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God, which is at work in you who believe' (1 Thes. 2.13). Psalm 30.5-6 says 'Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, or He wil rebuke you and prove you a liar'. Read 2 Tim. 3.16-17
Post #39
Dilettante wrote:
Ah, so there is such a thing as a literal interpretatio, only it runs contary to your beliefs?......
Interesting thing to say...Isaac Asimov (biochemist, author, athiest, evolutionist) wrote: 'And in man is a three-pound brain, which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe'. And yet he claims that the 'most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe' randomly mutated from pond-slime, which grew by chance out of nothingness.
Jesus said we should love Him not only with all our mind, but also with all our heart and soul, and willingness to comprimise the Word of God is not doing this. And besides, the Word is comprehensible even for the simpleton (Ps. 119.130).
Common sense hey? Well, this is the point--that to have faith in God's Word is to base our thoughts, and common sense, on it. So let's look at it Biblically.
We know the first three days were equal in length with the remaining days. The Hebrew word for day used is yom. The word day is qualified by number, and the phrase 'evening and morning'. This is the same for all creation days, and so, contextually, all must be of equal length.
Also, on the first day, God said 'Let there be light!' (Gen. 1.3). Revelation 21.23 tells us that the Sun is not needed, for there shall come a time when God is that light.
God didn't have to, he chose to. When God does something, it is for our benifit, not His. He was illustrating something, and He really wanted to emphasise it. Read Exodus 31.12-17 to see what God was demonstrating.
Do you believe in God? Then you must believe in His word. It is not of men, but of God. Paul wrote 'And we thank God continually because, when you recieved the Word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God, which is at work in you who believe' (1 Thes. 2.13). Psalm 30.5-6 says 'Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, or He wil rebuke you and prove you a liar'. Read 2 Tim. 3.16-17
The Word of God is not only trustworthy, but must the foundation of all our thoughts.
I disagree. Truth is not subjective--the Bible says something even if no one read it. I accept that my reading is an interpretaion, but understand what I mean by literal. I mean one in which my thoughts have as little influence over the reading as possible, where I read what is ays, not what I expect it to say because of outside opinions. By literal I mean an interpretaion as based upon the text, rather than my interpretaion [/i]acting upon the text.the Bible does not say anything until it is interpreted by someone. Your literal interpretation is just one among many possible interpretations. It is by no means the only one, let alone the correct one.
I only know a literal interpretation makes little or no sense at all
Ah, so there is such a thing as a literal interpretatio, only it runs contary to your beliefs?......
I do know we have brains...
Interesting thing to say...Isaac Asimov (biochemist, author, athiest, evolutionist) wrote: 'And in man is a three-pound brain, which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe'. And yet he claims that the 'most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe' randomly mutated from pond-slime, which grew by chance out of nothingness.
God probably wouldn't want us to disconnect [our brains] while reading the Bible.
Jesus said we should love Him not only with all our mind, but also with all our heart and soul, and willingness to comprimise the Word of God is not doing this. And besides, the Word is comprehensible even for the simpleton (Ps. 119.130).
Common sense tells us that a six-day creation is impossible because the sun and stars were created on the fourth day, according to Gen. 1: 14... but it makes no sense to believe in literal days before that, in the absence of the sun.
Common sense hey? Well, this is the point--that to have faith in God's Word is to base our thoughts, and common sense, on it. So let's look at it Biblically.
We know the first three days were equal in length with the remaining days. The Hebrew word for day used is yom. The word day is qualified by number, and the phrase 'evening and morning'. This is the same for all creation days, and so, contextually, all must be of equal length.
Also, on the first day, God said 'Let there be light!' (Gen. 1.3). Revelation 21.23 tells us that the Sun is not needed, for there shall come a time when God is that light.
It also makes no sense that God had to take a rest.
God didn't have to, he chose to. When God does something, it is for our benifit, not His. He was illustrating something, and He really wanted to emphasise it. Read Exodus 31.12-17 to see what God was demonstrating.
Trying to believe that the Bible is literally true in all details is like trying to bang a square peg into a round hole. It can be done, but it makes no sense.
Do you believe in God? Then you must believe in His word. It is not of men, but of God. Paul wrote 'And we thank God continually because, when you recieved the Word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God, which is at work in you who believe' (1 Thes. 2.13). Psalm 30.5-6 says 'Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, or He wil rebuke you and prove you a liar'. Read 2 Tim. 3.16-17
The Word of God is not only trustworthy, but must the foundation of all our thoughts.
Post #40
Where DO you get your ideas of evolution from - creatonist websites?Quemtal wrote: And yet he claims that the 'most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe' randomly mutated from pond-slime, which grew by chance out of nothingness.
Perhaps then you can tell me then... on what basis do you clain that the bible is the word of god?Quemtal wrote: Jesus said we should love Him not only with all our mind, but also with all our heart and soul, and willingness to comprimise the Word of God is not doing this.
You keep claiming this 'word of god' idea but on what basis?Quemtal wrote: Common sense hey? Well, this is the point--that to have faith in God's Word is to base our thoughts, and common sense, on it. So let's look at it Biblically.
Phew - and you reckon evolution is far fetched.Quemtal wrote: We know the first three days were equal in length with the remaining days. The Hebrew word for day used is yom. The word day is qualified by number, and the phrase 'evening and morning'. This is the same for all creation days, and so, contextually, all must be of equal length.
Also, on the first day, God said 'Let there be light!' (Gen. 1.3). Revelation 21.23 tells us that the Sun is not needed, for there shall come a time when God is that light.
No - he doesn't exist - he disqualigies his own existence by his own supposed claims. The existence of evil, the lack of answers to prayer, the fact that we all do not believe, all point to him not existing.Quemtal wrote: Do you believe in God?
