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?

Edited October 14, 2009 by Sir Gareth

[Sir Gareth]

And out of curiosity when do you think Genesis stops being metaphor and begins being history? The life of Abraham and his descendants not only read about as much like history as you can get, it also has left behind several historically and archeologically evidences.

[CSLewis]

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

[CSLewis]

And out of curiosity when do you think Genesis stops being metaphor and begins being history? The life of Abraham and his descendants not only read about as much like history as you can get, it also has left behind several historically and archeologically evidences.

Don't think it ever becomes history - it certainly contains history but we need to understand the

historical context in which it was written but ultimately it is a drama really and was written to battle paganism and the ideas that threatened to destroy the Jews whom God has set

apart. I don't know if that answers your question or not ?

I really enjoy Genesis alot and the more I study about the Jews and the

culture in which was prevalent the more these stories take on a deeper meaning - Abraham and Isaac's " sacrifice" is one of my favorite passages in the entire Bible. There is a lot of meaning there and prophetic foreshadowing

as well. I'm not going to say that God couldn't have created the world in six days - him being omnipotent and all but right now I really believe that the lie that needs addressing by Christianity is that if evolution is true God does not exist.

I think that does so much harm to furthering the kingdom of God and drives away people that struggle with scientific proof that evolution occured.

[Guest shiloh357]

So do you believe in the new testament when Jesus says "This is my body" this was metaphor or literal? And when referring to the end times as last days is that a figure of speech or is that literally days long gone?

I really don't remember a place in scripture that says disbelief in evolution is essential to be saved-

And that is not regurgitated Christian jargon I really do have a relationship with Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I guess when we get to heaven and you pass by me on those golden streets you will pretend I'm not there or Charles for that matter!

Of course Jesus was using a metaphor, but the Bible indicates that it was a metaphor. "Literal" refers to the intent of the author. When seeking a literal understanding of the text, it means that you are interpretting the text in accordance with how the author wants the text to be understood. Thus when a metaphor is used, we understand the metaphor the light of "Literal" intent infused into the meapthor by the author.

Charles Darwin was not a Christian. The problem is that belief in evolution requires an abandonment of God's word. Gen. 1 is the foundation of redemption. If Gen. 1 is wrong, everything built upon it is wrong. Either Evolution is wrong, or the Bible is wrong. A REAL Chrisitan will know which direction to go.

[Guest shiloh357]

And by Divinely inspired do you include the deutero canonical books? Who do you think decided on what books would be included in that canon?

So really what you are saying is that only those with the exact same interpretation of scripture as you are saved? So salvation is not God's grace but your interpretation is God which really makes you God. And I won't be joining your cult any time soon.

Genuine Christianity accepts all 66 books of the Bible as the inspired, inerrant/infallible Word of God and the final arbiter on all matters of Christian faith and practice.

It is not a case of saying that only those who interpret as I do are saved. Rather, it is the belief in the authority and inerrancy of the Bible (all of it) that is an evidence of a real Christians. No one is saved by how they interpret Scripture, but the way one handles and approaches Scripture is a good indicator of where they stand.

There are many "Christians" who seek to mold the Bible around secular, manmade concotions, such as evolution. Many so-called "Christians" are nothing but religionists who demand their brand of belief to accepted as Christian. The truth is that everything must be held up to the light of Scripture, which is the final authority of the matter. Evolution fails the test where sound biblical theology is concerned. It fails at every point.

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

There is no poetic nature to the text. Hebrew poetic forms do not occur at any point in the text. Even if it did have poetic elements, poetry does not necessarily mean "non literal."

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.

The problem is that the text is written in Hebrew and only Hebrew Parallelism would be found. Hebrew poetry follows three different types of parallelism, none of which are found in Genesis. There is no reason, in terms of literarly analysis to claim that Genesis 1 is poetic, much less that it is anything other than literal account. Gen 1 is not a scientific account, but it is a literal account. It is a literal anything else recorded in Gen. 1.

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.

Or maybe God's word is simply true and things happened the way He said they did and science just needs more time to catch up. God is perfectly capable of getting His point across.

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 Jubil

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

There is no poetic nature to the text. Hebrew poetic forms do not occur at any point in the text. Even if it did have poetic elements, poetry does not necessarily mean "non literal."

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.

The problem is that the text is written in Hebrew and only Hebrew Parallelism would be found. Hebrew poetry follows three different types of parallelism, none of which are found in Genesis. There is no reason, in terms of literarly analysis to claim that Genesis 1 is poetic, much less that it is anything other than literal account. Gen 1 is not a scientific acc

[leoxiii]

the best and simplest explanation for this evidence is a really old earth?

No. The best and simplest findings is that the dating of rocks using these methods is very inaccurate.

Where the isotopes come from is something that needs to be explored in more detail.

You are assuming they do not naturally exist.

You are assuming they are not part of the original creation.

We are at liberty to reject your assumptions.

Assumptions are not "science".

They are "assumptions".

[spiritman]

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.

Actually what I'm saying is; that in Genesis chapter 2 verse 7 God inspired moses to write what He (God) wanted us to know. Even though the words were Written by a man named moses, the words, that moses wrote came from God. So If Genesis chapter 2:verse 7 reads; And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

And you say; Quote " The way that God created man from the dust was through evolution" Then you are saying that God is lying. Therefore you align yourself with the father of lies ( Satan).