[metmom]

If God's statement that man is created in His image and that God Himself breathed life into man is a lie, if the reality is that we evolved from pond scum, then every other thing that God has told us in His Word has to be questioned.

That was the conclusion I came to as well.

Even if God used animals from which to evolve humans, there's still the problem with Gen 2:7 in that it says that man became a living being. Animals are already alive, so that comment would be totally unnecessary. Adding that comment very strongly implies that the man created from the dust of the earth was not alive before that moment.

[gondramB]

>> If God’s statement that man is created in His image and that God Himself breathed life into man is a lie, if the reality is that we evolved from pond scum, then every other thing that God has told us in His Word has to be questioned.

---

That was the conclusion I came to as well.

---

Even if God used animals from which to evolve humans, there’s still the problem with Gen 2:7 in that it says that man became a living being. Animals are already alive, so that comment would be totally unnecessary. Adding that comment very strongly implies that the man created from the dust of the earth was not alive before that moment. <<

I believe the two of you have hit on the heart of the questions:

Suppose some scientific evidence emerges that makes it clear that part of Genesis is not literal. Does that really have to mean God is not real?

Haven’t we limited God too much at that point?