To the darwinists

[CSLewis]

The way that God created man from the dust was through evolution

Word in this context was "Logos" Which I believe is a reference to Jesus Christ and is the word which logic comes from and doesn't refer to the Bible - because it wasn't even written yet and it wasn't canonized and believed to be God's word at the time this was written. Are you saying a Bible was flying around space before the creation of the world? Word does not mean Bible.

[CSLewis]

It does not say six literal days - you added literal- which is your interpretation -

Catholics believe that the bread is literally Jesus' body because he says "this is my body" do you believe that as literal?

When Jesus says "i am the vine and you are the branches" did he turn into a plant?

Well then your not a Christian because God's word is literal and unless you believe that Jesus turned into a plant you cannot be saved because that is what it says.

[Sir Gareth]

A Christian cannot believe we descended from apes and that we are created in the Lord's image. It's not possible.

Curiously, your denial has no bearing on millions of Christians who do just that.

Thats because Christian is just a name to so many, they think if you go to church, read the bible or pray they are christians.

Yet they miss the true point of Christianity, the calling to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ who reconciles us to God through his sacrafice and shed blood.

[Sir Gareth]

It does not say six literal days - you added literal- which is your interpretation -

Catholics believe that the bread is literally Jesus' body because he says "this is my body" do you believe that as literal?

When Jesus says "i am the vine and you are the branches" did he turn into a plant?

Well then your not a Christian because God's word is literal and unless you believe that Jesus turned into a plant you cannot be saved because that is what it says.

You really must be a very poor reader when you cannot understand the difference between things mean to be literal and things meant to be figurative. There are parts of the bible which are meant to be read literally, some are meant as parables, it takes time to read, study and understand the word of God, instead you take the all too common easy way out and say 'it's all a bunch of metaphors.'

So i guess you do not believe Jesus was litterally born of a virgin or literally rose from the dead then?

[MorningGlory]

Then the 'millions' of Christians are CINOs. It's not negotiable; either you believe you are descended from Adam, created in the Lord's image or you believe you're descended from a chimpanzee. You cannot believe both.

Again, your personal opinions count for exactly nothing as millions of Christians continue to keep right on having no problem with evolution. You're contention that evolutionary theory is a point of salvation is completely unbiblical and originates, I suspect, more from fear than good theology.

Did you bump your head or something, Lurker? My 'contention that evolutionary theory is a point of salvation'? What are you talking about? I DO NOT believe such a thing ..... fear??? Your post makes NO sense.

[MorningGlory]

Then the 'millions' of Christians are CINOs. It's not negotiable; either you believe you are descended from Adam, created in the Lord's image or you believe you're descended from a chimpanzee. You cannot believe both.

Again, your personal opinions count for exactly nothing as millions of Christians continue to keep right on having no problem with evolution.

My personal opinions? You really are clueless about the Bible, aren't you?

[CSLewis]

Very poor reader? Tell me all knowledgeable sir - who are you to decide what parts are to be read literally or not? Transubstantion and eschatology are two areas in which Christians disagree on the literal interpretation of the text in addition to soterology and genesis 1. I was obviously being sarcastic about the plant comment - and of course I believe in the virgin birth and resurrection - my point is that you are pulling the two accounts out of creation out of context by claiming a day was 24 hours and not a figure of speech which really was to show the importance of the sabbath.

[CSLewis]

By contrast, there are those who look at Genesis 1 and feel that a "literal" understanding of the creation is unwarranted by the text, pointing to the poetic nature of the passage. The repetitive mantra of "and there was evening, and there was morning, the ___ day," suggests it is more of a creation "hymn" than an historical narrative. Charles Hummel in his book The Galileo Connection, outlines how in Hebrew, the stages of creation fall into eight distinct stanzas with repetitive endings and beginnings that tie together in a similar pattern.

Moses and the Six Days

As for the problem of Moses' reference, poetic proponents look at the fact that Moses was speaking to a group of people who had no concept of an earth that could be billions of years old and had no perception of modern scientific discoveries. To introduce a scientific point into a society that had no basis of understanding would have been akin to Jesus trying to explain how an orchid seed, which they had never seen or heard of, was really smaller than a mustard seed. Instead, Jesus just said that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds because it fit with their current frame of reference - even though scientifically, it was untrue. Moses was undoubtedly doing the same thing. Their frame of reference and understanding was the cyclic "six days" of creation that may or may not have been based in a "scientific" reality.

Furthermore, the "Sabbath" idea transcends the weekly understanding in other Mosaic laws, such as the Sabbath Year, which occurred every seven years, and the Year of Jubilee, which occurred every 50 years. These are all tied to the concept of the "Sabbath" and God's "day" of rest, even though they are years. (As a side note, in Deuteronomy 5:14-15, Moses gives a completely different reason for the Sabbath, that it is a remembrance of their bondage in Egypt, not as a reminder of God's creative work. This does not mean that one is right and the other is wrong, as both are undoubtedly true. But each gives a distinctly different reference point behind the meaning of the Sabbath.)

Ads by Google

Bible/World History Chart

Elegant chart of our entire history Biblical figures/events chronology

www.visquar.comChagall Original Prints

Over 250 original Chagall prints All works guaranteed as described

spaightwoodgalleries.com

The Point of the Creation Account

What many literalists who focus so heavily on the "six days" usually miss is the overarching point and message of the creation account. Genesis 1 was written for a specific purpose during a particular time in history - primarily to counter the other near-eastern creation poems, such as the Babylonian "Enuma Elish," refuting the polytheistic and idolatrous world view which worshiped the creation rather than the creator. Each phase of creation in Genesis 1 addresses two principle categories of divinity in the polytheistic/pantheistic religious culture, declaring that light/dark, sea/land, earth/vegetation, celestial orbs/stars, animals of water/sky, and finally land animals/humans, are all creations of God and the creations are not gods themselves.

Thus, Genesis 1 was not written in order to challenge modern scientific theory, but rather was written to reveal God as creator, not as part of creation. The purposeful God of Genesis who speaks, calls, creates, sees and blesses stands in stark contrast to the warring, chaotic gods of the ancient near-east that fight, destroy, kill and enslave.

The Point of "The Day"

Most Christians acknowledge that their own perception of the "beginning" as a whole is limited to human spatial and temporal understandings of the universe. Thus trying to put a time frame around the creation account is a difficult task. The writer(s) of Genesis were operating out of their own limited understanding of the universe as a whole. God's revelation to humanity in this period and time was not to give a scientific methodology of creation, but rather to reveal who God was: creator of all that exists.

Thus, the significance and meaning of what is meant by "the day" as well is not something that can be counted up in periods of the earth's rotation. Instead, it is probably more helpful to see "the day" as representing the cycles of creation; an expression of how the formless becomes form, how darkness of night gives way to the light of morning. Christ will later be identified as this same "light" that dispels the darkness. (John 1)

- Rebecca Craig

I think she sums up pretty well how the creation account can be seen as figurative and not literal without diminishing the infallible nature of the word of God.

[MorningGlory]

By contrast, there are those who look at Genesis 1 and feel that a "literal" understanding of the creation is unwarranted by the text, pointing to the poetic nature of the passage. The repetitive mantra of "and there was evening, and there was morning, the ___ day," suggests it is more of a creation "hymn" than an historical narrative. Charles Hummel in his book The Galileo Connection, outlines how in Hebrew, the stages of creation fall into eight distinct stanzas with repetitive endings and beginnings that tie together in a similar pattern.

Moses and the Six Days

As for the problem of Moses' reference, poetic proponents look at the fact that Moses was speaking to a group of people who had no concept of an earth that could be billions of years old and had no perception of modern scientific discoveries. To introduce a scientific point into a society that had no basis of understanding would have been akin to Jesus trying to explain how an orchid seed, which they had never seen or heard of, was really smaller than a mustard seed. Instead, Jesus just said that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds because it fit with their current frame of reference - even though scientifically, it was untrue. Moses was undoubtedly doing the same thing. Their frame of reference and understanding was the cyclic "six days" of creation that may or may not have been based in a "scientific" reality.

Furthermore, the "Sabbath" idea transcends the weekly understanding in other Mosaic laws, such as the Sabbath Year, which occurred every seven years, and the Year of Jubilee, which occurred every 50 years. These are all tied to the concept of the "Sabbath" and God's "day" of rest, even though they are years. (As a side note, in Deuteronomy 5:14-15, Moses gives a completely different reason for the Sabbath, that it is a remembrance of their bondage in Egypt, not as a reminder of God's creative work. This does not mean that one is right and the other is wrong, as both are undoubtedly true. But each gives a distinctly different reference point behind the meaning of the Sabbath.)

Ads by Google

Bible/World History Chart

Elegant chart of our entire history Biblical figures/events chronology

www.visquar.comChagall Original Prints

Over 250 original Chagall prints All works guaranteed as described

spaightwoodgalleries.com

The Point of the Creation Account

What many literalists who focus so heavily on the "six days" usually miss is the overarching point and message of the creation account. Genesis 1 was written for a specific purpose during a particular time in history - primarily to counter the other near-eastern creation poems, such as the Babylonian "Enuma Elish," refuting the polytheistic and idolatrous world view which worshiped the creation rather than the creator. Each phase of creation in Genesis 1 addresses two principle categories of divinity in the polytheistic/pantheistic religious culture, declaring that light/dark, sea/land, earth/vegetation, celestial orbs/stars, animals of water/sky, and finally land animals/humans, are all creations of God and the creations are not gods themselves.

Thus, Genesis 1 was not written in order to challenge modern scientific theory, but rather was written to reveal God as creator, not as part of creation. The purposeful God of Genesis who speaks, calls, creates, sees and blesses stands in stark contrast to the warring, chaotic gods of the ancient near-east that fight, destroy, kill and enslave.

The Point of "The Day"

Most Christians acknowledge that their own perception of the "beginning" as a whole is limited to human spatial and temporal understandings of the universe. Thus trying to put a time frame around the creation account is a difficult task. The writer(s) of Genesis were operating out of their own limited understanding of the universe as a whole. God's revelation to humanity in this period and time was not to give a scientific methodology of creation, but rather to reveal who God was: creator of all that exists.

Thus, the significance and meaning of what is meant by "the day" as well is not something that can be counted up in periods of the earth's rotation. Instead, it is probably more helpful to see "the day" as representing the cycles of creation; an expression of how the formless becomes form, how darkness of night gives way to the light of morning. Christ will later be identified as this same "light" that dispels the darkness. (John 1)

- Rebecca Craig

I think she sums up pretty well how the creation account can be seen as figurative and not literal without diminishing the infallible nature of the word of God.

To whom are these two posts addressed?

[CSLewis]

The first to sir gareth

the second is a little summary of how I can believe evolution and still be a Christian. But not written by me - lifted off of a christian website and not necessarily the views of the author