Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't get why the structure of the Bible requires that Genesis be literal.
To the true theistic evolutionist, the world we see today is as it's been since the beginning. So everything concerning what we see scientifically, is how God created. In other words dying is natural, diseases are natural, Hurricanes/earthquakes/tornadoes and everything we see is natural. None of these things are the result of Adam's sin. To the true theistic evolutionist, the only thing that Adam's (which by the way Adam here could represent humans as a whole at some point in time) sin did, was break our communication with God. So Jesus came to restore that communication.
The problem with this is that Jesus didn't just come to restore communication. He healed the sick, opened up blind eyes, and calmed the storms. Why would He do these things if all of those things were apart of God's natural order? This is why Genesis must be taken literally. That the world is not as it always was, but was perfect in the beginning. If not, all the miracles Jesus did wouldn't make sense. Really none of the NT makes sense. (Because they make it clear death was brought in, because of the actions of the one man Adam. Likewise because of Jesus, we can be righteous)
To the true theistic evolutionist, the world we see today is as it's been since the beginning. So everything concerning what we see scientifically, is how God created. ....
I have to stop you right there. If the world today is exactly how it was at the beginning, then why are there no more wooly mammoths around? What you seem to be saying is that the world is stagnant and unchangeable which contradicts the very idea of evolution, theistic or not.
I have to stop you right there. If the world today is exactly how it was at the beginning, then why are there no more wooly mammoths around? What you seem to be saying is that the world is stagnant and unchangeable which contradicts the very idea of evolution, theistic or not.
I guess I'm not understanding your logic here.
I'm referring to all the laws the world is governed by. Life and death, the water cycle, etc. Everything that currently governs our world, has been like it was since the beginning. Pretty much what scientists tell us about the formation of the universe, our solar system, and our planet, is how God created this place. That is how the theistic evolutionist sees the world.
Yet if God really created diseases, animals eating each other alive, and even animals eating humans, is that really God's handiwork? How do you reconcile God loving us, if He created animals that possibly sees us as a meal? (Not too mention all the natural disasters that goes on, and all the cruelty of nature)
The concept of Original Sin is inherent in Christianity. God made all things good, but something went wrong, throwing a wrench in the gears.
The basic question you're asking really has little to do with evolution. It is: Why does God allow evil? Or more basically: How can an omnipotent God who is love allow suffering?
People far smarter than me have given some good answers to those questions. If you want a real in depth explanation, read St. Thomas Aquinas. If you want a more layman-friendly answer, check out C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity or The Problem of Pain.
The concept of Original Sin is inherent in Christianity. God made all things good, but something went wrong, throwing a wrench in the gears.
The basic question you're asking really has little to do with evolution. It is: Why does God allow evil? Or more basically: How can an omnipotent God who is love allow suffering?
People far smarter than me have given some good answers to those questions. If you want a real in depth explanation, read St. Thomas Aquinas. If you want a more layman-friendly answer, check out C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity or The Problem of Pain.
Evil is a choice, just like love is. I sense you believe in the concept of Adam's sin and what it did. I believe that is what happened, and that is why we have all the disasters we have on the planet. Yet if the history of evolution is true (and I'm not talking about the adaptation of species, but that every creature in life shares an ancestor), Adam's sin didn't cause all this disaster. Adam's sin didn't even cause death to enter the world. How can a Christian believe such contradiction?
Evil is a choice, just like love is. I sense you believe in the concept of Adam's sin and what it did. I believe that is what happened, and that is why we have all the disasters we have on the planet. Yet if the history of evolution is true (and I'm not talking about the adaptation of species, but that every creature in life shares an ancestor), Adam's sin didn't cause all this disaster. Adam's sin didn't even cause death to enter the world. How can a Christian believe such contradiction?
How does sin create disasters? It's a concept, not a physical entity. Original Sin doesn't exist in the Bible. Most Jews don't take the Adam and Eve story literally. Even people like Saint Augustine said anyone who takes Genesis literally is a fool and makes a mockery of Christianity.
How does sin create disasters? It's a concept, not a physical entity. Original Sin doesn't exist in the Bible. Most Jews don't take the Adam and Eve story literally. Even people like Saint Augustine said anyone who takes Genesis literally is a fool and makes a mockery of Christianity.
It's simple. Adam's disobedience created a disconnect from God. In God we were perfect. Yet, without Him, we can't operate as we once was, and if we are utterly diconnected from Him, we just waste away. Our very breath comes from Him. Most people look at Adam's sin as just something he did. Yet what He actually did was created a seperation from God. God is like the outlet in the wall. Appliances only work if they are plugged in. Adam disconnected the creation from the outlet in the wall. Now nothing is working like it was in the beginning.
Yet let's say Genesis wasn't supposed to be taken literal. That would void a great deal of meaning from the Bible. It would mean God created us to be sick and die, as the world sees those things as a natural occurence. Yet why would Jesus heal anyone, if God created us to be sick? That would mean Jesus is going against the Father's will. Augustine can call me a fool, but where would that leave him?
I believe it's when we look at Genesis literally, we fully see the consequences of the sinful nature. Scripture tells us that God and sin cannot be in the same place. When God came down on Mt. Sinai, God told Moses to tell the people not to come near less they die. It was because of their sinful nature, everything about them was off the mark. (Not just actions, but their whole body and being, which the actions are the result)
If you remove all that, the Bible then becomes a metaphor. A grasping at air concept. If Genesis didn't literally happened, we can also say the miracles of Jesus weren't literal. That His promise of eternal life wasn't literal. Which is easier to believe? That God created the world 6,000+ years ago, or someone can live forever?
Evil is a choice, just like love is. I sense you believe in the concept of Adam's sin and what it did. I believe that is what happened, and that is why we have all the disasters we have on the planet. Yet if the history of evolution is true (and I'm not talking about the adaptation of species, but that every creature in life shares an ancestor), Adam's sin didn't cause all this disaster. Adam's sin didn't even cause death to enter the world. How can a Christian believe such contradiction?
Adam's sin didn't create evil. Lucifer's did. The Fall of Man did not create evil. That's just when mankind chose sides.
If you're going to interpret Genesis 100% literally, then how do you explain the talking snake? Yes, tradition tells us that was Satan, but that's not what Genesis says. Genesis says quite literally "the serpent." As soon as you say, "Yes, it says serpent, but that's not what it really means," then you're no longer interpreting literally. You're admitting there is some metaphor and symbolism going on. And Genesis says nothing about the serpent being "possessed" by Satan. Not a word.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
