Posted on 12/09/2008 2:39:05 PM PST by My Favorite Headache
President George W. Bush said his belief that God created the world is not incompatible with scientific proof of evolution.
In an interview with ABC's "Nightline" on Monday, the president also said he probably is not a literalist when reading the Bible although an individual can learn a great deal from it, including the New Testament teaching that God sent his only son.
About creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can — you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."
"You know. Probably not. ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son,'" Bush said.
"It is hard for me to justify or prove the mystery of the Almighty in my life," he said. "All I can just tell you is that I got back into religion and I quit drinking shortly thereafter and I asked for help. ... I was a one-step program guy."
"I do believe there is an almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people,"
Asked whether he thought he would have become president had it not been for his faith, Bush said: "I don't know; it's hard to tell. I do know that I would have been — I would have been a pretty selfish person."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.aol.com ...
You’re STILL trying to cover for this BUFOON? !!!
> God created animals after creating Adam. (Genesis 2)
You obviously are ignorant of the subject matter: the Word of God.
31 ¶ And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Here God had already finished the sequential description of what was made back in chapter 1. Why else would he rest from all his work which he had made? Now we are in chapter 2. He describes ~how~ the plants were inside the ground. (...before they grew...Verse 5). This is descriptive of HOW he made things, not in which *sequence* he made them. So goes the rest of the chapter...
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Which words in verse 19, in which describes HOW he formed them, i.e. them being formed out of the ground (and that he brought them to Adam), indicate that God stipulates the animals were formed /after/ Adam?
Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
My wife (little rebel) said this exact thing to me when I read the title to her...just as I finished reading your post!
LOL!
I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution.
Why did God form Hitler?
214.
The Bible is Gods gift to his creation. It is infallible and if it only “contains” the word of God, it is not “the word of God”.
Many years of study leads me to believe in the Gap theory. Science will never prove the Word of God wrong. The Word of God will always prove scientific facts to be correct.
Don't you just hate it when people take the MSM generated headline at face value and don't bother to read what the person actually believes and says?
Why are you even discussing religion?
Which words in verse 19, in which describes HOW he formed them, i.e. them being formed out of the ground (and that he brought them to Adam), indicate that God stipulates the animals were formed /after/ Adam?
You have to read it with the previous verse about Adam. "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast" points out that God formed the beasts after he found Adam alone and in need of a help mate.
Because I agree with Bush and find it sickening that all these so-called "Christians" bad-mouthing him in a very UN-CHRISTIAN way.
Ah, the familiar smell of a previously banned EVO trying to sneak back into the scene...how sad.
Evo's were created by God, also.
> You have to read it with the previous verse about Adam.
> “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast”
> points out that God formed the beasts after he found Adam
> alone and in need of a help mate.
The fact that Adam needed a mate in no way indicates that chapter 2 is indicative of the sequence of creation.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;
So God clearly created these animals out of the ground.
...and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
God also brought these animals, that he had created out of the ground to Adam.
There is no indication that the animals, the ones that were created out of the ground, were freshly minted only split seconds before he brought them to Adam. To indicate this, there would need to be a “then” inserted, which is not there.
... No, I'm not a literalist..."
a.) The Headline is legitimate.
b.) The President's admission of being "just a simple president" is legitimate.
Oy...
***In an “unchristian way”***
Which way would that be ... exactly? Whited Sepulchres? Full of dead men’s bones? Vipers? Heaping unbearable burdens? Swine? Wolves in sheep’s clothing? False prophets? Son’s of perdition? Satan?
Pray. Do tell.
OK, that's fine -- but what you're really saying is that there are distinctions between the literary forms of the Bible, and that they must be understood as such. It's clearly not one size fits all. So just in that sense, the meaning of "literally true" begins to require some careful definition.
Next, how do you know which parables are not "literally true," and which were not? Was the parable of the Prodigal Son a short story that Christ made up, or did it actually happen?
Oh, it may have happened -- but you're surely not going to argue that Jesus' meaning was limited to a recitation of a particular bit of family drama, especially not in the context of the rest of Luke 15 (i.e., rejoicing in heaven when something lost was found). At the very least, if that story was based on fact, Jesus was nevertheless discussing something different from the literal story. And if the story was made up -- all or in part -- then your whole argument collapses.
It can be logically argued (and theologically) that if the Truth said a parable, it was true.
Jesus certainly used the parables as a way of getting at the truth -- but then, poetry does the same thing, and nobody would claim that it was "literally true."
Jesus Himself discusses the nature of parables, in Matthew 13. The Parable of the Sower is explicitly allegorical. Moreover, Jesus essentially states that the parables are not to be taken literally: This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
Clearly parables have, and are intended to have, meaning over and above what is actually said. And Jesus seems to say that the literal meaning of parables is actually different from the real meaning.
You are now back on virtual ignore...ha ha ha!
LOL!
Since you apparently forgot to finish your incisive discussion of the topic, tell us, sir: how is a Psalm "literally true?"
Do you mean to say God loves a liar? A Poser? A bought-and-paid-for-dupe?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.