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 ...
How do you know he did that if the Bible is such a fallible mess created by a bunch of fallible men? Maybe the original text says he came to establish a gym or a PTA.
Nicely said!
Nicely said!
He may never “BE” President, but he’s stated that he is interested in running.
Not that there aren't plenty of examples of "true but not literally true" in the Bible, but how did you not know about the definition in bold?
1. To agitate; stir up.
2. To afflict with pain or discomfort.
3. To cause emotional strain or anxiety to; worry or distress.
4. To inconvenience; bother: May I trouble you for directions?
Source: American Heritage Dictionary
You seem to be implying that there's no difference between "true" and "literally true."
Consider Psalm 23. It's clearly true in a metaphorical sense that describes our relationship with God; but it's just as clearly not literally true, because we are not sheep as in ovis aries, and God is not a literal herder of sheep.
There is no specific church which will result in anyone “being” a Christian. “Being” a Christian requires two things IMHO - First, accepting Christ as your Savior, and second Believing God (There is not an order in which these two thing need to occur). Believing “in” God is not enough. Believing God means accepting His word, and living according to His commandments. Belonging to and attending a Church has to do with Fellowship not Christianity. Just 2 cents worth.
Well stated.
IMHO, there are some well founded arguments which indicate attempts to accept the tenets of evolution and creation as coequally true, fail to respect volumes in His Word.
In studying both, I find more veracity in studying them through faith in Him and what he provides first, then interpreting them by Scripture, rather than attempting to interpret Scripture by physical science alone, as my source of faith.
I did at one time identify physical science as a summation of His laws which had veracity, but later discovered there is more to His Creation than physical Laws, and furthermore that some things physical laws fail to have authority over some things in His Plan.
So while I see nothing wrong in studying evolution or science through faith in Him, I find studying Him through faith in evolution and science to be woefully inaccurate, not always true, and missing the mark of both.
I’m not covering for you. Just calling it like I see it, the media being the media. A little critical thinking never hurt anyone.
1. Go google around and find all the "fictional" things in the Bible that there was no archaeological support for...until they found some.
2. Such a flood would be so catastrophic and move stuff around so much that there would be almost no way to find archaeological evidence of it. It wouldn't be like discovering a town hit by a Mississippi flood and picking out whose house was whose. It would be more like trying to give people back the saltine crackers they lost in the flood.
3. Enjoy: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/flood
Very Good!!!!For many years now I have understood the Bible to be: Some spiritual; some literal and some symbolic.
I’m still working on an “AUG” degree (AUG= Approved Unto God)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
I’ve been a serious student of the Scriptures since 1963, I’m still a simple student, but it has enriched my life and blessed my family, and I praise God in our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ
Forgive me for jumping in here, SkyPilot.
God said it:
"Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear." Isaiah 45:23
Paul, as God's appointed representative, said so as well:
"Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."--Philippians 2:9-11
2 Timothy 3:16
For starters.
You don't even know what war we're fighting.
Islam is not a religion of peace. However, there are plenty of Muslims who believe it is, just as there are "Christians" who believe Jesus gave us the religion of guy-on-guy action.
So, we can have th Cheif Exec saying "All you muslims worship the religion of terror" or we can have him acknowledging their view of thir faith, get them on our side and get their help defeating the ones who want to lop our heads off.
I prefer winning existential wars.
I agree with you. And perhaps President Bush has become more aware of Holy Tradition. In the Gospel and letters of John, John states that he could not write everything down. So some things were passed on orally from person to person. It’s not all in the Bible.
The nameof the Gnostic Gospels should tell the discerning person all they need to know.
The Gnostic Gospels weren’t included in the Scriptural canon for the same reason Maureen Dowd will never write for National Review. They promote a philosophy that is in conflict with the publication.
What would you say if someone decided Shakespeare’s plays, Charles Dicken’s novels, or the music of Beethoven could be rewritten & improved?
I’ll be right back. . .
Writing in the journal “The Alternative”, Richard Hanser, author of The Law & the Prophets and Jesus: What Manner of Man Is This?, has called attention to something that is more than a little mind boggling. It is my understanding that the Bible (both the Old & New Testaments) has been the best selling book in the entire history of printing.
Now another attempt has been made to improve it. I say another because there have been several fairly recent efforts to quote “make the Bible more readable & understandable” unquote. But as Mr. Hanser so eloquently says, “For more than 3 1/2 centuries, its language and its images, have penetrated more deeply into the general culture of the English speaking world, and been more dearly treasured, than anything else ever put on paper.” He then quotes the irreverent H. L. Mencken, who spoke of it as purely a literary work and said it was, “probably the most beautiful piece of writing in any language.”
They were, of course, speaking of The Authorized Version, the one that came into being when the England of King James was scoured for translators & scholars. It was a time when the English language had reached it’s peak of richness & beauty.
Now we are to have The Good News Bible which will be in, “the natural English of everyday adult conversation.” I’m sure the scholars and clergymen supervised by the American Bible Society were sincerely imbued with the thought that they were taking religion to the people with their Good News Bible, but I can’t help feeling we should instead be taking the people to religion and lifting them with the beauty of language that has outlived the centuries.
Mr. Hanser has quoted from both the St. James Version & the Good News Bible some well known passages for us to compare. A few thousand years ago Job said “How forcible are right words!” [Job 6:25] The new translators have him saying “Honest words are convincing.” That’s only for openers. There is the passage [Eccl. 1:18], “For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow”. Is it really an improvement to say instead, “The wiser you are, the more worries you have; the more you know the more it hurts.”
In the New Testament, in Mathew, we read “The voice of the one crying in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way.” [Matthew 3:3] The Good News version translates that, “Someone is shouting in the desert. Get the road ready.” It sounds like a straw boss announcing lunch hour is over.
The hauntingly beautiful 23rd Psalm is the same in both versions, for a few words, “The Lord is my shepherd” but instead of continuing “I shall not want” we are supposed to say “I have everything I need.”
The Christmas story has undergone some modernizing but one can hardly call it improved. The wondrous words “Fear not: for; behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy” has become, “Don’t be afraid! I am here with good news for you.”
The sponsors of the Good News version boast that their Bible is as readable as the daily paper – and so it is. But do readers of the daily news find themselves moved to wonder, “at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth”? Mr. Hanser suggests that sadly the “tinkering & general horsing around with the sacred texts will no doubt continue” as pious drudges try to get it right. “It will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right.”
This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.
— aired September 6, 1977
1. The Genesis accounts are not in conflict. Verses 1:1 through 2:3 are an overview and 2:4-25 is more detail about th creation of Man.
2. There’s nothing about verse 19 that requires that the forming of those beasts had to happen after Adam was created. There is no inconsistency here.
So you believe that a period described as a "day," having a morning and evening means something besides a day?
What is the limit you see to God's abilities that would prevent him from creating the Universe in the allotted time?
What would the day represent in allegory, especially considering that it can't be an allegory for an evolutionary age, because plants exist before light and birds before land animals?
What does reason tell you about this: You're the Almighty. You've recently evolved lower creatures into one bearing your image and a very useful intellect. Do you:
A. Tell these creatures a story of the Earth they can fathom without science (so old you can't fathom it, seeds of life grow into greater and greater creatures, God carefully designs and places the heart and mind of Man, etc.)
B. Tell them a fairy tale about how you created the world in six days, and include items like plants existing before there was a sun, women resulting from orthopedic surgery and a talking snake?
I'm not as smart as God, but option A looks like the clear winner to me...unless option B is actually true. What's your take?
For many centuries revealed wisdom had it that the sun revolved around the earth.
Cite for me in the Bible where it states that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Why are the Gnostic gospels not scripture? Did God tell you they are not his word?
Did God tell you they are? If not, why is the judgment of people in the early church somehow inferior to yours?
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.