Posted on 09/18/2006 1:51:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
That's a great answer! While it doesn't change my mind, its definitely food for thought!
Yes, probably... But there you are reading something into the Bible. The fact is that we don't know, and there are a lot of things we don't know.
I believe that it is all literally true, but what is the literal truth? It is the literal truth that Christ came from Bethlehem, as prophesied, but the Priests believed that He came from Nazareth, and therefore ruled Him out as the Messiah. If you get stuck on nonessential details, you miss the big picture, and you may be wrong in the final analysis.
For example, suppose that Adam and Eve were themselves created directly by God, but there were humans who evolved (and of course, God started that process as well), and those evolved humans ultimately reproduced with Cain and Able to produce modern humans?
Both could be literally true.
Of course, I don't know which is true, but to fight WWIII over this issue seems counter productive to me. It would have been a lot less destructive if the Mideival Popes had simply recognized that the Copernican solar system was not inconsistent with the Bible from the outset, and refrained from making it an issue.
Indeed. When lightning rods were first proposed many clergymen condemned them, as they appeared to run counter to the manifest Will of God.
Yet after a time doubt crept in. Surely it was a weak God indeed, whose manifest Will could be deflected by $10 worth of metal from hitting the cathouse, while the church next door still received the brunt of His wrath. Perhaps God was not personally directing every lightning strike after all...
"Therefore God, did not create man in an instant, but shaped and reshaped "the dust of the ground" until He had created man.
Which is a remarkably on-target analogy for evolution"
Um...this is quite a leap, don't you think? Shaped from dust vs. shaped from something living are two different things.....
If the evidence is false and God is omnipotent, then he either fabricated the evidence or allowed it to be fabricated (by Satan, I presume?)
In response to:
"Why can't God write in symbolic ways? (You seem to be boxing Him in by saying that either he is lying or he meant the Genesis account to be simple historical fact.)"
God can and does write in symbolic ways in Scripture. He also writes, through inspired authors, in literal ways. How did Jesus and the New Testament writers treat the Genesis account, as symbolic or literal? If Jesus didn't know how to interpret Genesis, then, confessedly, neither do I (I am not claiming perfect interpretation ability for myself). However, if Jesus claimed the Genesis narrative was true, and refers to its historic authenticity (not as symbolic), you can accept His words or reject them, just as people of His earthly days did.
The analogy is not in the material, but in the act.
at what point between apes and humans did God decide to give humans a soul?
At what point would you like it to be?
Actually I don't think that the Bible anywhere explicitly says that God creates "out of nothing". Creationists often assert that the Hebrew term "bara" translated in Genesis as "create" only refers to creation ex nihilo, but I don't see how this can be correct since in the book of Amos it is said that God "creates (bara') the wind". And of course, apart from create/bara, there is much creationistic language that speaks of god "making" and "forming" things from preexisting material, and much that goes to his governance of nature.
Even if God sometimes creates ex nihilo, its clearly wrong to suggest that this is always characteristic of his actions as Creator.
Is "pish-tosh" nice?
The only reason to "accept" evolution would be if an individual believed it to be an accurate explanation of events.
Acknowledged and appreciated.
Shouldn't that be "If they accept macroevolution they believe God is a Liar."
The more I study it, the more it seems as though there is no more conclusive evidence for evolution as there is for creationism. But people (the scientific and academic communities) stifle any debate by dismissing it altogether, which also bugs me.
Sorry, just got a little off topic there.
the "material" is the debate, don't you think?
Do you have scriptural examples of the views of Jesus on the historical accuracy of the Genesis account? (sincere question, not trying to be argumentative)
Film at eleven!
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.