Pope: Creationism, Evolution Not at Odds

[Jorge S]

What do you think science is? Do you not believe that it is a gift from the very God who you claim to defend? Do you think that He gave us science so that we could better understand Him? The only things fragile in this discussion are: (a) the 6-day Creation myth, (b) the ancient Hebrews' scientific minds ...

God made us in His Image and after His Likeness. That's the real gift. Science is rather a tool we use by exercising our God-given ability to reason in the pursue of our God-given mandate to subdue the earth. (Gen 1:26-28) Science is not an independent entity of reality and data alone can tell us nothing.

The Bible is the revealed Word of God and suits all people everywhere anytime, from its first instalment to all eternity. If it taught one thing to some and something totally different to others then it wouldn't be the inerrant Word from an omniscient and eternal God. As a Christian I find it impossible to believe that God instructed Moses to write down a deceptive account of Creation that would be discredited by men later in history. Therefore, dismissing a literal belief in what the Bible has to say about Creation can only come from a literal belief in something else, e.g. the evolutionary model proposed by current scientific standings.

Is it really justified?

[Jorge S]

But wouldn't you agree that reading a bible in a vacuum would not give one the same depth of understanding as someone who has regularly attended bible studies for 20 years, or someone who has graduated from seminary, or scholars who can draw from other works to explain and give depth to scripture passages. Heck, if we didn't have access to liguists who can explain hebrew or greek context, we'd be in quite a bit of trouble.

Those advances confirmed the exegetical principle that 'Scripture interprets Scripture', something that the Bible claims for itself all along. Wouldn't you agree that on issues that the Bible emphatically asserts the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the text regardless of what we think we know?

[Jorge S]

I think more accurately if you're dealing with ancient text its how something is said is sometime as important or more important that what is appearing in a flat text page. Christians get flogged with "thou shalt not kill" all the time by anti war, anti capital punishment types, but a simple reading of the text in its original context makes clear what the intent of the commandment is (murder). Without somebody fluent in linguistics, couldn't Christians be horribly hung up on that phrase?

Killing has a broader sense than murdering and deals with the act of terminating someone's life in whatever circumstances. Only God, the Giver of Life, can take it back. Compare the commandment you quoted with Gen 9:4-6.

As far as something emphatic, I would argue, if you take the resurrection, its a pretty simple issue with not alot to haggle over, with a pretty clear cut choice of conclusions--did it or did it not happen.

Same with Creation. Both are miraculous events which, by definition, resist naturalistic explanations.

When it comes to creation, the how is vitally importantly because we live in the event, and can reach out and touch it, test it, examine, and even manipulate it. Furthermore, is the 6 day creation an essential of faith? I don't think so. Once one agrees that God did it, I think you are in pretty good stead.

Everything in the Bible is there for a purpose. Ask yourself why did God have to give details about a timeframe, duration of days and an odd sequential order? Gen 1:1 could have sufficed as a general statement of His Authorship of the universe.

[RedNick261]

As a Christian I find it impossible to believe that God instructed Moses to write down a deceptive account of Creation that would be discredited by men later in history. Therefore, dismissing a literal belief in what the Bible has to say about Creation can only come from a literal belief in something else, e.g. the evolutionary model proposed by current scientific standings.

No one is saying it was or is deceptive, except those arguing for its literality. Allegory is not deceptive unless it is claimed to be literal. You're correct that dismissing the literal interpretation of certain parts of Scripture is necessary to believe the literal interpretation of science, but that does not somehow exclude the viability of those parts of Scripture as allegory. Perhaps, as I've stated a million times before, the point of Genesis 1 and 2 (in particular) was to show the power of God in a way the recipient would understand, not to transcribe the literal happenings of the Creation.

the same scripture that declares Christ was resurrected after 3 days apparently isn't good enough for you, either...what "proof" is there of that?

Once again, putting words into my mouth. Please refrain from throwing out baseless accusations. Again.

Those advances confirmed the exegetical principle that 'Scripture interprets Scripture', something that the Bible claims for itself all along. Wouldn't you agree that on issues that the Bible emphatically asserts the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the text regardless of what we think we know?

Where does Scripture claim that exegetical concept? Eisegesis by any other name is still eisegesis. If one "scholar" wants to read something into Scripture so that it will "stand alone" (which it was never meant to do, as John Wesley wisely observed), it doesn't make it fact. If anything, the exegetical principle that "Scripture interprets Scripture" is not exegetical at all. It is simply another account of intellectual dishonesty within the church.

[Guest lnj]

The Pope is bowing the knee to the masses and he is acting the part of a "People friendly" Pope. That was a very wishy washy overview of his stance on environmental issues I must say.

[sweetycakes]

Who cares what the Pope says, anyway?

He has set himself up as the 'Man/God'...able to interpret and change scripture as he wills.

We know better

[RedNick261]

Moses thought striking the rock was ok, too...it's this low view of scripture which causes the Church to be discredited all over the world, and God is dishonored

Actually, it's the ignorance and dogmatic behavior of the more outspoken Christians would be the cause of the faith being discredited, for the most part. Talk to any average Joe on the street and ask them what they think of the church and Christians in general. There are two things that will be said by the majority of people: 1) hypocrisy or not practicing what you preach, 2) they're weird and out of date (beliefs, speech, etc.). Very rarely would I hear someone say that they would discredit Christianity because some Christians are thoughtful and give creedance to science and reason instead of to poor interpretations of a book that requires more than a "straight read". Why does the Bible come off as out of date to most people today?

Same with Creation. Both are miraculous events which, by definition, resist naturalistic explanations.

By what other method than that described in Scripture could a dead man be raised again to life? There is no other way to describe that. With Creation, it's an entirely different set of circumstances. First of all, unlike the Creation, the resurrection was witnessed by some of the authors of the accounts of the event, Creation was not. Creation has a viable scientific method and meaning, the resurrection does not. They are entirely different animals, other than that they involve a certain amount of supernatural activity, set in course by an Almighty Creator.

[RedNick261]

To my knowledge, this topic is not entitled, "Bash the Pope". The purpose of this thread is to discuss the viability of a statement made by one of the most powerful Christian leaders in history, whose position has existed longer than any other Christian leader, save Christ Himself. The merits of him as a person are not what is in question, it is the merit of his argument. Please discuss the facts of the argument, not the man's personal affiliations or your views of him personally.

[sweetycakes]

Who cares what the Pope says, anyway?

He has set himself up as the 'Man/God'...able to interpret and change scripture as he wills.

We know better

amen to that

the entire papal fallacy is built on lies...there is no "succession" from Peter, and Peter was never anything more than an apostle

Agreed....with one exception...

Peter was a shining example of an apostle. We should not denigrate him

The pope, however, is an imposter......thinking that he represents 'Christ on earth'...and is able to speak on His behalf.

You are right to say that there is no papal succession from Peter to the Popes either of today or in the past.

I personally don't give two hoots what the Pope says.....My authority comes from Scripture, and from Christ Himself

[RedNick261]

no, ubiquitous naturalistic pagan religious beliefs about earth history are the first and foremost reason most people dismiss the Bible

No, the aforementioned beliefs (of which, neither theistic evolution nor old-earth creationism are a part) are not even widely believed. The Bible is discredited in the eyes of many men because those entrusted to uphold it and interpret it fail to do so and come off as fools, along with their scripture being viewed as a fairy tale. Those who stand opposed to observed fact in favor of a literal interpretation of something that was probably never intended as literal cause the lack of respect for the Scriptures.