To the darwinists

[Sir Gareth]

If we compare the accounts in Genesis to other biblical writings they resemble the histories much more so than they do the literature. It is also very common in writtings such as the bible for there to be memory aids built into the scripture, much like using a hymn so that you can use meter and rythym as a way to better remeber the words.

If we take the children's rhyme 'in 1492 columbus sailed the ocean blue' should we say it is not talking about a literal trip because it involves a sort of rhyming and an almost musical scale?

Within the historical context that it makes more sense to be figurative than literal - days being a way of counting off Gods sovereignty over pagan deities - why was this particular passage written in meter and then the style changing drastically? I think you miss the point completely by trying to manipulate science to fit your particular view of scripture which was not the point of it at all- and to be so brazen as to say a different view of this particular passage means I am not a Christian is unbelievable it's as if a calvinist would say to a wesleyan they were not saved because they interpret scripture differently

I think you miss the point of God's word completly by trying to manipulate scripture to fit into your idea of what science should be. If you stand up more for secular science than for God it is sad to me.

I have no problem with how you interpert scripture, remeber it's you who came on, guns blazing, accusing us of idol worship because we believed in innerrancy while you do not, how brazen is that?

[CSLewis]

I apologize for that my friend - I do think it can be a real danger though - not so much the inerrancy but the belief that "my Or my church's or my favorite theologians interpretation/ translation/ idea is infallible . We really do rely a whole lot on other men/ women's studies in order to understand the bible. Historians, archaeology, and like spiritman said hermenutics and exegesis have to be done and relied on in understanding and reason must be employed when understanding but therein lies the problem - when there are great great men and women of God who believe very different things about the same scriptures and even translators who come to very different conclusions of the meanings of words and the syntax - we really run into problems by holding "my" doctrine as sacred . It's not black and white here, and the truth may be a paradox.

[spiritman]

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions:

y

[CSLewis]

I thought sin entered the world and this death had to do with a spiritual death and not necessarily a physical death - though death is used as a metaphor for sin and corruption throughout the scriptures- we would still need Christs healing power because man is the only animal capable of sinning - and whether or not physical death predated Adam matters not- again you miss the point- it was a spiritual fall that took place in the garden one that would require a pure sacrifice for atonement - I guess I miss the connection how evolution spoils all of that

[MorningGlory]

I thought sin entered the world and this death had to do with a spiritual death and not necessarily a physical death - though death is used as a metaphor for sin and corruption throughout the scriptures- we would still need Christs healing power because man is the only animal capable of sinning - and whether or not physical death predated Adam matters not- again you miss the point- it was a spiritual fall that took place in the garden one that would require a pure sacrifice for atonement - I guess I miss the connection how evolution spoils all of that

Can you find anything in Genesis (or the entire Bible) that says we were once apes? Anything? Anywhere? What is so hard to understand about that??

[Sir Gareth]

I apologize for that my friend - I do think it can be a real danger though - not so much the inerrancy but the belief that "my Or my church's or my favorite theologians interpretation/ translation/ idea is infallible . We really do rely a whole lot on other men/ women's studies in order to understand the bible. Historians, archaeology, and like spiritman said hermenutics and exegesis have to be done and relied on in understanding and reason must be employed when understanding but therein lies the problem - when there are great great men and women of God who believe very different things about the same scriptures and even translators who come to very different conclusions of the meanings of words and the syntax - we really run into problems by holding "my" doctrine as sacred . It's not black and white here, and the truth may be a paradox.

I would like to clarify, i do not personally hold to only one translation of the bible being true (i.e. King James Only) but i do still believe the bible is God's preserved word. And while i would most assuredly fight for your right to believe it differently if you wish to, I will also defend my position if pushed.

[CSLewis]

I thought sin entered the world and this death had to do with a spiritual death and not necessarily a physical death - though death is used as a metaphor for sin and corruption throughout the scriptures- we would still need Christs healing power because man is the only animal capable of sinning - and whether or not physical death predated Adam matters not- again you miss the point- it was a spiritual fall that took place in the garden one that would require a pure sacrifice for atonement - I guess I miss the connection how evolution spoils all of that

Can you find anything in Genesis (or the entire Bible) that says we were once apes? Anything? Anywhere? What is so hard to understand about that??

Once again the bible says nothing about mitochondria either- it is not a science book.

[spiritman]

I thought sin entered the world and this death had to do with a spiritual death and not necessarily a physical death - though death is used as a metaphor for sin and corruption throughout the scriptures- we would still need Christs healing power because man is the only animal capable of sinning - and whether or not physical death predated Adam matters not- again you miss the point- it was a spiritual fall that took place in the garden one that would require a pure sacrifice for atonement - I guess I miss the connection how evolution spoils all of that

I have to call it a night right now but tomorrow; I'll come back on and show you some more differences between evolution and the scripture.

[CSLewis]

I thought sin entered the world and this death had to do with a spiritual death and not necessarily a physical death - though death is used as a metaphor for sin and corruption throughout the scriptures- we would still need Christs healing power because man is the only animal capable of sinning - and whether or not physical death predated Adam matters not- again you miss the point- it was a spiritual fall that took place in the garden one that would require a pure sacrifice for atonement - I guess I miss the connection how evolution spoils all of that

I have to call it a night right now but tomorrow; I'll come back on and show you some more differences between evolution and the scripture.

You mean "literalists" view of the scriptures. Look forward to it and I can get hooked on these theological debates - I once had a three month discussion with a good friend of mine about sola scriptura - I ended up having a dream that i was in heaven and I was arguing both sides of a Calvin Wesley debate and that's when I told my friend this is a waste of time but I think we still have a good bit to explore before we exhaust this subject but we are getting close! But I guess it's better than women and drugs - my past life.

[Guest shiloh357]

Exactly Leo - the reformers conveniently rid themselves of the entire deutero canonical books because of problems therein

genesis 1 is the very definition of synthetic paralellism but you are right just because there is poetry doesn't mean that there is not history as well- but do you consider Christ a liar for referring to a mustard seed as the smallest seed? When biologically we know that's not true? No because that's not the point- just like gen 1 is a polemic against near east religion.

The deutro-canonical books were not excepted by the Jews, nor were they cited by any apostle. They were not added to the Catholic canon unitl the mid-1500s at the Council of Trent. Unlike the 66 books of the one, true Bible, the apocrypha contains numerous historical inaccuracies. It also contains theological errors such as praying for the dead, giving alms for the atonment of sin, petitioning dead saints in heaven for their prayers, worshipping angels and so forth. For those reasons, biblical Christianity rejects the apocrypha.

As for Jesus, He was clearly using hyperbole. The problem is that you are applying the wrong notion of "literalism" is. Literalism simply means to read a text in accordance with the intent of the author. It does not mean to read the Bible in a wooden, face-value approach.

However, you cannot compare Mark 4:31 with Gen. 1. Gen 1. is not a synthetic parallel and any competent exegete can see that. The fact remains that there is NO poetic forms whatsoever in Genesis 1. I speak and read Hebrew and recognize Hebrew parallelism, and it is simply not there. Gen 1 is written as an historical narrative as is the remaining chapters of Genesis.

The only way Genesis one can be seen as a polemic against near east religions is to attribute the book of Genesis to human origin. The divine origin of the book and its overarching emphasis on the redemption of man from beginning to end, defies the "polemic" argument.