Posted on 12/09/2008 12:32:05 AM PST by marthemaria
WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President George W. Bush said in an interview Monday that the Bible is "probably not" literally true and that a belief that God created the world is compatible with the theory of evolution.
"I think you can have both," Bush, who leaves office January 20, told ABC television, adding "You're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president." But "evolution is an interesting subject. I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life," said the president, an outspoken Christian who often invokes God in his speeches.
"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," he told ABC television. Asked whether the Bible was literally true, Bush replied:
"Probably not. No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it." "The important lesson is 'God sent a son,'" he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
[Petronski] You failed logic.
[GL] Where's the error?
All humans are Hominidae.
All apes are Hominidae.
Therefore, all humans are apes.All apes are vertebrates.
All fish are vertebrates.
Therefore, all apes are fish.Corollary:
All humans are fish.
No, but you can be an ape if you insist. You can demonstrate the seriousness of your conviction that you are an ape by taking up residence in a zoo, alongside the other apes. You shouldn't object to that, since you insist you are an ape anyway.
Huxley was Darwin's main apologist for evolution. Darwin held him in great esteem. Darwin never disapproved of Huxley's anti-religious use of "evolution". Huxley was awarded the Darwin Medal. You should ponder these things: Design and Darwinism.
How do you reason that, considering that the theory of evolution says things evolve without design?
"The great apes are the members of the biological family Hominidae which includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans." This means that if you're not an ape, you're not human...by definition.
If I'd said:
"Porsches includes such models as the Boxster, the Carrera GT, and the Cayenne" This means if a car isn't a Porsche, it's not a Carrera GT...by definition.
Would you have disagreed with this?
I noticed that when I did re-phrase the statement to adhere more closely to formal logic, you (conveniently) failed to quote it, so I'll include it again:
All humans are apes. Therefore, anything that is not an ape is not human.
I'll also repeat my question: Where's the error?
Do you also deny being a primate, a mammal, and an animal? Just curious.
On further review, you did not fail logic, but I failed reading comprehension.
Fair enough, and graciously conceded.
The lack of the Lord’s “mindfulness” is not vital to the theory. That is a metaphysical addition from those who hold that you can’t believe in God and acknowledge the evolutionary process (as several Popes and many other believers have done.)
Technically, the theory is that genes change, the changes that survive can change the plant or animal, and the changes are reproduced in subsequent offspring. Many changes can result in new species.
Is the gradual change over time acceptable to you when you look at crystals or ground formations? Molecule on molecule, pebble on pebble, occasionally disturbed by changing surrounding conditions?
While I know that the Lord divided the waters and the land, I’m pretty sure that the mountains and riverbeds have been formed from the natural processes he set in place. He is “mindful” of them, but they are amenable to our study and we can expect to understand most of what we study and make predictions from what we learn.
Miracles such as the water from the rock that Moses struck and the division of Jerusalem mentioned in Revelation have happened and will happen. That doesn’t make what I can learn about geology false.
Then the gradual change of the DNA of living beings should not trouble you.
The key is He exists, He is the Creator, and He is Truth, the same at all times and places and *He does not lie,* although not everyone understands everything He does or says. Begin from there, look for truths revealed over and over to observers. Look at what is happening, now, and assume it’s happened in the past.
Neither I nor the President said the Bible is a book of fairy tales. You go to far in your assumptions and your declarations.
Here you go too far.
"God gave his only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish." "Even while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Full and perfect understanding is not promised to all of us, and thank Him, never required of His children.
Argue your issue, tell us how to understand the Bible as literal, but do not tell us that we "may as well deny everything else." That's how we get men like Michael Schermer and lose so many young men and women.
Rom 14:13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.
The problem remains the same: the idea that the Scriptures, written by holy, righteous, perfect, omniscient God, is not literally true.
That's the issue.
2 Timothy 3:16 is true or it’s not.
If it is true, the Bible is ALL “God breathed”.
If it’s not, then there is none of the Bible to be trusted.
Insisting that “literal” is the only way to be “true” is a false dichotomy. Analogies, poetry, metaphors are not “literal,” and yet they may be “true.”
We understand that the Song of Solomon is a metaphor for the relationship of the Lord with His people, for instance. However, I don’t expect that many would take it as a “literal” description of the conversations to come.
So ? He was on this subject wandering into un-scientific matters where he had no knowledge and no business. This sort of oddity was not unique to Huxley or Darwin.
Einstein was an outspoken, activist Communist.
Newton was an alchemist who searched for the philosophers stone, among other things, and he was also a believer in numerology and other aspects of the occult.
My suggestion ? - Leave the weird philosophical stuff, take the science.
Tell me, what exactly about the Song of Solomon is not literally true? The love and adoration expressed in that book is false?
In Jeremiah 24:5, the word "figs" is being used to represent the Jews that are carried away. In Jeremiah 24:1-8, the word "figs" is used eight times denoting the Jews. In Mark 11:12-14, the fig tree withered away, as it was producing no fruit. It may be noted that the word "fig" here represents Israel, and the word "tree" represents nation. The nation of Israel did wither and was destroyed. We see in Ezekiel 31:5,8,9,12,14-16, the word "tree" is often used as a symbol for a nation.
This brings us to Luke 21:29-31. Jesus said,“look at the fig tree, and all the trees. When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.." Since we know from previous Scripture that the fig tree represents the nation of Israel, and Jesus said when the fig tree begins to bud, (when Israel becomes a nation), events signifying the end of the present age will begin to happen and the generation that is alive when Israel becomes a nation will not pass away until these things do happen. That is this present generation.
So I would say that we can see in just this one part a perfect example of the inerrancy and absolute truth of the Bible. We have seen Israel become a nation and we see the nations that made up the geographic area of the old Roman Empire beginning to unite, just like God, in the book of Daniel, said they would, and we are the generation that is witnessing the signs Jesus said would happen before He returns.
I don't know about you, but I call that literal truth. And truth that only God could know.
Again, you’re trying too hard to prove your rant right.
After your exegesis, we can understand the literal truth. However, the Lord was being poetic. No one would fault someone for not comprehending the connection between budding fig trees and the kingdom or for needing the hindsight and/or the explanation.
Remember Peter and John on resurrection morning. Remember Thomas, who not only questioned, but put his hand out to touch the scars of Jesus. Give some of the grace you’ve been given.
Because you don't like what I'm saying does not make it a rant and I don't have to "try hard" to "prove" something that is right in front of everyone's face.
You have not been able to dispute the facts so you accuse me of ranting and of "withholding grace", whatever that means.
The inerrancy of Scripture is deadly serious and the salvation of billions of people, not to mention the importance of knowing what the reasons are behind the events occurring in the world today, depends on that inerrancy.
It is a dangerous position indeed to claim, because of a lack of human understanding of God's Word, that the Bible contains untruths. But you need to know that there will always be those out here who won't remain silent while God is basically portrayed as some kind of buffoon and storyteller who can't get it quite right because there are human beings who can't grasp what He is saying.
It's as simple as that.
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.