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 ...
I don’t think we disagree on our core principal beliefs. I would probably agree with you 95% on conservative ideals. But denying that the Bible is not true in all parts is opening up the entire Christian belief system to question. That’s a camels nose under the tent for non believers to ridicule and question Christianity and its entire moral foundation.
“Literally true” is a tough phrase. Different parts of Scripture are different types of literature. We have parables, we have poetry, we have history, we have prophetic literature, and so on. You have to approach each type of writing in Scripture as it was intended to be interpreted.
That said, the creation account is clearly to be taken historically. I, like many others, don’t see evolution as compatible with Scripture. Indeed, each creature that God created reproduced “after its kind” — that’s a VERY CLEAR denunciation of evolution.
But some Christians are ashamed of God’s words, and try to wiggle away from it by saying that the theory of some scientists is compatible with God’s Word. I agree with other scientists that evolution is NOT compatible with Scripture, and encourage FReepers to just choose one or the other. As for me, I choose the historical and biblical truth that God created a variety of “kinds” of creatures, which have drifted genetically, but which have always remained within their “kind,” and have never “evolved” (an increase of genetic information over time).
That is what we would teach if we used the Bible as a science textbook.
Look a little deeper and you'll probably find that these "Christian scholars" also deny the divinity of Christ, deny His virgin birth, death, and resurrection, deny what He has said about the wretched condition of man and the fact that man's only hope of reconciliation with God is through the person of Jesus Christ; in other words "Christian scholars" who claim that the very foundation of Christianity is a lie.
God warned us about these people:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. (Matthew 7:15)
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that[a] Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. (1 John 4:2,3)
Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one. And the easiest way to tell is if a person denies the Word of God then he probably doesn't know God.
Very well put. You are very wise.
Ok, someone gets to explain how they are compatible..please:)
No one can explain something that is not a possibility.
I don’t see anyone chomping at the bit to explain your question methodically, logically or physically.
Some one had a clip art in here that said something like:
“Creation and Evolution are the same and both given by God”(?)
Now that is a mouthful! Evidence, please?!
I think a whole bunch of people need to give it up for faith. We all have faith - whether we act on faith or not - faith is present. Evolutionists can no more prove evolution than I can reach out and touch God’s hand. Their faith is in something they cannot see and never will see, yet they are convinced of it. And I’ve yet to hear them disprove what I’m saying right here.
There is no compatibility between Creation and evolution. God gave us science and math and language and medicine and every other good thing we can name. None of these are in conflict with Creation. What mankind DOES with some of these are definately in conflict with God and his Creation.
The great deception. Asking if one believes if the Bible is "literally" true is like asking, "So when did you stop beating your wife?"
The real question should be, "Do you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God?"
Doesn't surprise me that George would say this. He really isn't very smart...
That is key — Scripture says that death resulted from sin, and that Jesus came to deal with that sin. Evolution says that death came before sin, that the cycle of death was God’s way of bringing “all this” about.
Evolution (a cycle of death that results in the increase of genetic information) and Creationism (God created various “kinds” of creatures, and that death only arrived on the scene after Adam’s sin, and that creatures have devolved some within their “kind”) are not compatible. Those who have studied both, and thought deeply about both, know this. Those who have only taken a shallow glance at each theory are fine accepting both as true.
Well, the left has made hay for 8 years out of "Chimpie" Bush, and the president-elect has a somewhat more simian resemblance than Bush, but we can't say that about him, so I won't.
No its not. The Bible is not, in itself, our religion. St. Paul and co. were Christians, and so were their converts, even as they were writing the Epistles and even the Gospels. There were Christians before there was an assembled scripture. There was in fact a highly organized Church before there was an accepted scripture. The Bible is not the moral foundation of Christianity, that pre-existed it.
What conventional Christianity (such as the Catholic and Orthodox churches) has always said is that the Bible requires interpretation. That does not mean its not true.
Will President Bush be more likely to go to Hell for saying this?
Hm. Scripture is clear that everyone is going to hell. We’ve all sinned. That is everyone’s destiny. Not for their opinions on creation, but because we’ve sinned, is everyone deserving of Hell and eternal death.
Ah, but a Savior has been given. And those who’ve been saved by Him will not go to Hell.
I stated what I thought the concept was about, not that I necessarily accept it. If you want to reinterpret, knock yourself out.
That's not exactly true. People don't go to hell for rejecting Jesus. We are all going to hell as a consequence of sin.
Though some are saved by Jesus.
I guess I won’t convince you. All I can say woe to those who deny the inspired word of God. You are on your own.
Jesus explained many concepts through the use of parables. In the telling of a parable, He would relate it as though it actually happened. His listeners understood that the parable was illustrative, rather than being an account of an event that literally happened in all details.
When reading of the Good Samaritan, how many Christians here think Jesus was relating a story that occurred in exact detail?
Why is it the President’s role to talk about this at all?
You haven't visited me lately, have you?
“I don’t think it is incompatable with scienfific proof of evolution”
And just where is the proof of evolution? Just where is the “missing link”? Show me. Dumb old me just can’t see how an ear “heard” while it was evolving, an eye “see” while it was evolving. I’ve never seen a horse birth a cow. Dumb old me just needs to see the proof. And that first duck that flew south, how did he tell the other ducks to follow him? Instinct you say? How long did it take instinct to evolve and how many ducks died developing it? Evolution must begin with the assumption that life began from rocks that came from the big bang or something. Dumb old me finds it more believable that life came from a Creator.
“Evolutionist’s have their evidence and theories....”
“Both take faith...”
(sirchtruth - this is not directed at you, just building from you!)
Both REQUIRE faith since none of us were there! Why is faith REQUIRED? Faith is sure of what we hope for and certain of what we DO NOT SEE.
Evolutionists are CERTAIN of what THEY DO NOT SEE and never have seen. Faith is required when belief is put in something not seen. Yet they come across as those with all the hard facts and hard evidence. They have no evidence and certainly no proof. Show me!
Now interestingly, evolutionists are not ‘sure of what they hope for’ because they have no hope of anything. There is no eternity for them. There is no God (what is God if that ameoba crawled up on the beach all by its self?!). Could an evolutionist believe in heaven and hell? Well please explain where they learned of these places they cannot see?
Faith is a total waste without hope in something beyond this short life......
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.