[megatherium]

Concerning the book of Genesis: The creation story was not meant to be taken literally. It is extremely revealing to compare the Genesis creation story with its Babylonian antecedents. Many of the same elements are there, they're too similar to be the result of coincidence. But the writers of Genesis reworked the older creation stories to say something about God. Instead of stories involving petty, jealous all-too-human "gods", they put together a story that involved a Creator who created the cosmos and humankind because they were good, a Creator who expects justice from his creatures, humankind. Notice how Genesis refers to the sun and moon, not by their given names, but as the "greater light" and "lesser light" in the sky? This is to avoid using names which in the ambient cultures were names of a god and goddess. The message is very clear in Genesis: do not worship the creation, e.g., the sun or moon -- only worship the Creator.

In this sense, we can take Genesis as true: a poetic statement about the Creator and his relationship to the cosmos and humankind. But we cannot take it as literal scientific truth. The scientific evidence is absolutely overwhelming that life has developed from a simple common ancestor over thousands of millions of years. Most branches of Christianity have long since recognized this fact, and have reached the conclusion that evolution poses no more threat to Christian theology than the present problem of evil in the world. For example, Roman Catholics teach that God used evolution to creat us. Only in one portion of the Evangelical ("fundamentalist") movement is a literal reading of Genesis demanded of Christians. I believe that this is a huge barrier between educated people and Christianity -- an unnecessary barrier! As Jesus put it: "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:6)

[Just mythoughts]

Were Genesis what you claim it to be Christ Himself would have told us so. He did not, and He said I have foretold you alll things. Now Moses penned Genesis, have you read what Christ had to say about Moses???

[mlc9852]

If you don't take Genesis literally, then there is nothing else to say.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

But we cannot take it as literal scientific truth.

Oh yeah! Then how do you explain Rumpelstiltskin, or what ever his name was, predicting global warming? Ain't global warming science? Ain't prophecy religion? There, argument over!!

:-)

[muawiyah]

The Creation Story you find in the Bible has NO BABYLONIAN ANTECEDANTS.

It is, in fact, a Sumerian version. The Semitic variations came later ~ actually, much later.