[MineralMan]

"...He's also an idiot"

No, actually he is not an idiot. The different creation stories are well-known and much discussed among theologians.

Probably a majority of Christians believe that the creation story is non-literal. Other Christians believe it is a literal account.

Both groups, however, accept Jesus as their savior. That's why they're Christians. The question of whether the first couple of chapters of Genesis are literal or story-telling makes no difference, really.

[Brooklyn Kid]

"Both groups, however, accept Jesus as their savior. That's why they're Christians. The question of whether the first couple of chapters of Genesis are literal or story-telling makes no difference, really."

You're right, but how come there's so much disdain on FR for Jehovah's Winesses and mormons (among others)?

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

Probably a majority of Christians believe that the creation story is non-literal.

I rarely post on threads about this topic, but after seeing this post I had to ask. Do you have any data to back this statement up? If so, please provide a link, or was it simply your interperetation of a percieved assumption? I do not want to appear hostile in any way, not am I trying to be, but the gravity of that statement made me want to ask.

Freepgards,

[csense]

The different creation stories are well-known and much discussed among theologians.

If discussion of a controversial issue infers belief of the same, then what would that say for the evolutionists on this forum, let alone academia.

This isn't even an issue among serious scholars of the bible, and the vast majority find such claims untennable.

There are just too many elements missing for any serious reader of the Bible to conclude that a different Creation story starts at Genesis 2:4. In fact, it doesn't even mention the creation of the Earth, nor does it mention the oceans, fish, whales, Sun, Moon, and stars.

[Elsie]

 The question of whether the first couple of chapters of Genesis are literal or story-telling makes no difference, really.

 

 

---

Quite a comment from MineralMan, a self-proclaimed atheist!

---

 

 

Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says. 

If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers,

they have to decide what the following verses mean:

 

Acts 17:26-27

 26.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
 27.  God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

 

 

Romans 5:12-21
 12.  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
 13.  for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
 14.  Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 15.  But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 16.  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
 17.  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18.  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
 19.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 20.  The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
 21.  so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

 

If there were  no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

 

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

 

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

 

 

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic?  Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

 

 

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

 

 

 

 

1 Timothy 2:13

  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  

 

 

Was Paul WRONG about this???

 

[Sensei Ern]

MM, you are mistaken.

"The question of whether the first couple of chapters of Genesis are literal or story-telling makes no difference, really."

Unless you mean they make no difference to an atheist.

The lineage of Adam is absolutely necessary. Through Adam, we have all inherited a sin nature that can only be dealt with by the sacrifice of God Himself, through Jesus dieing on the cross.

If we instead evolved from apes, some of us would be of a line that had no sin. Also, if humans were from apes, the other humans would see how severly God dealt with Adam and Eve, that they would never do the same. That would open the door for prejudism.

[mel]

You are right, but people really get bent out of shape over it.