[_ Old Earth _] creationism essential to christianity?

[Free]

Because you are NOT being clear Free and I wonder why you can't answer a very simply constructed question?

I have answered it plainly and I really don't know how I can make it clearer. I wonder why you can't understand a very simply constructed response.

Your understanding of that verse is wrong.
And, the way you would understand it makes it irrational and actually fantastic.

The ONLY way that verse can be understood rationally is to understand that Jesus was symbolizing himself as Truth, the concept of Truth as an ideal.

Actually, he is quite right. It seems to be your understanding of it which is fantastical, not his. I cannot even remotely see how you have come to that conclusion. I think most theologians would agree with Stan or at least some version of what his understanding of that verse is.

 

[felix]

What do you feel the time lengths were befroe God actually created day and night?

The word "beginning" explains the creation of "time" itself by God. However, the definition of "a day" was not until God created light and separated it. Hence, it is nearly impossible to exactly know how much time was from the "beginning" to the "first day" of creation.

 

[Stan53]

The word "beginning" explains the creation of "time" itself by God. However, the definition of "a day" was not until God created light and separated it. Hence, it is nearly impossible to exactly know how much time was from the "beginning" to the "first day" of creation.

Well like I said I used to subscribe to the "gap" theory, but for a little while now I subscribe to a "fully mature" type of creation. The style of writing though in the first two chapters of Genesis is a bit repetitive with more details each time. So Moses starts with Gen 1:1, then details starting in 1:2. As 1:3 starts with and it appears to be immediately after 1:2, then 1:3 starts details of the 6 days and finishes in 2:3. Then 2:4 starts details in essence after 1:26 and goes to 2:25, then back to 1:27 as a summation. Confusing, but it works that way. Then 3:1 picks up the chronology and moves forward after that with no breaks.

 

[Free]

Do not misrepresent peoples' positions.

 

[Barbarian]

I will make an effort to be very careful in that regard. We can all do that, I think.

And maybe we should remember that Christians are Christians, regardless of their position on evolution or creationism. It's not what matters to God. He saves on hearts, not evolution. The important thing is to try to be as good an imitation of Christ as you can, to let your Christianity show without preaching. To be like the early Christians, who attracted converts from unbelievers who marveled "see how they love one another."

I can do better. I will try.

 

[felix]

And maybe we should remember that Christians are Christians, regardless of their position on evolution or creationism.

I disagree. People who call themselves Christians are not Christians. Christians are the body of Christ who acknowledge Him as their Creator. You cannot be in the body of Christ and not glorify Him as Creator.

 

[reba]

I will make an effort to be very careful in that regard. We can all do that, I think.

And maybe we should remember that Christians are Christians, regardless of their position on evolution or creationism. It's not what matters to God. He saves on hearts, not evolution. The important thing is to try to be as good an imitation of Christ as you can, to let your Christianity show without preaching. To be like the early Christians, who attracted converts from unbelievers who marveled "see how they love one another."

I can do better. I will try.

 

[Free]

I disagree. People who call themselves Christians are not Christians. Christians are the body of Christ who acknowledge Him as their Creator. You cannot be in the body of Christ and not glorify Him as Creator.

You seem to be suggesting that evolution and the act of creating are mutually exclusive but that is not necessarily the case.

 

[felix]

You seem to be suggesting that evolution and the act of creating are mutually exclusive but that is not necessarily the case.

Yes they are mutually exclusive.

(Gen 5:1) .. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

He did not "create" a pre-biotic soup and allowed man to evolve.

How much clearer can Scripture be, the way God created man with His?
(Gen 2:7) And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.


If anyone says, God did not "create" man, then he denies "his Creator". Further, he undervalues the power of God as incapable of creating as Scripture speaks.

So, how did Eve evolve according to you? Did a rib fall off Adam and got evolved itself into Eve?

Do not underestimate the power of God by giving yourself over to the wisdom of this world which is foolishness before God.

 

[Grazer]

Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive as they are 2 different types of explanation. Evolution is a mechanism, God (creation) is an agent/designer/creator. Just because we have a mechanism does not exclude an agent that designed it.

As for the "soup", its not out of the realms of Genesis:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. - Genesis 1:1-2

Evolution is only incompatible with a literalistic reading/interpretation of Genesis. Whilst in the past this reading was taken by the majority, it was by no means everyone who viewed it this way. Other cultures had texts which describe their take on the creation of the universe and these texts pre-date Genesis. One view, and it's the one I more lean to at the moment, is that God used these existing texts (which would have been well known at that time) and style to explain that there is only 1 God, the moon and sun are mere lights and that everything exists because of him.

Having said that, I am in agreement with N.T Wright in that it's important that there was a couple that got it badly wrong but that doesn't mean that Genesis should be reduced to "clunky history" I have pasted the video below so you can hear N.T Wrights comments in context

[video=youtube;3BP1PpDyDCw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BP1PpDyDCw[/video]

 

[Grazer]

Another N.T. Wright video

[video=youtube;ffWo7nzL66o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffWo7nzL66o[/video]

 

[cupid dave]

Yes they are mutually exclusive.

(Gen 5:1) .. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

.

You took that one verse out of context.
The passage is followed by the undeniable inference that Adam is NOT an individual man, but a reference to a kind or type of man, a species if you will investigate further into the genealogy:


Gen 5:2Male and female created heTHEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the daywhen THEY were created.



http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id31.html

 

[felix]

You took that one verse out of context.
The passage is followed by the undeniable inference that Adam is NOT an individual man, but a reference to a kind or type of man, a species if you will investigate further into the genealogy:


Gen 5:2Male and female created heTHEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the daywhen THEY were created.



http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id31.html

It doesn't prove anything. God created and called them Adam on a single day.

 

[Asyncritus]

You took that one verse out of context.
The passage is followed by the undeniable inference that Adam is NOT an individual man, but a reference to a kind or type of man, a species if you will investigate further into the genealogy:


Gen 5:2Male and female created heTHEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the daywhen THEY were created.

Dave

If I made 2 cars on the same day, when I was telling you about the cars, would I say 'Go look at it' or 'go look at them'?

 

[Asyncritus]

Another N.T. Wright video

[video=youtube;ffWo7nzL66o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffWo7nzL66o[/video]

Pathetic. Theologians? Bah. Who needs them?

 

[felix]

Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive as they are 2 different types of explanation. Evolution is a mechanism, God (creation) is an agent/designer/creator. Just because we have a mechanism does not exclude an agent that designed it.

As for the "soup", its not out of the realms of Genesis:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. - Genesis 1:1-2

Evolution is only incompatible with a literalistic reading/interpretation of Genesis.

God created everything through His Word - not through a "mechanism":
(Gen 1:11) Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb [that] yields seed, [and] the fruit tree [that] yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed [is] in itself, on the earth"; and it was so.
(Gen 1:20) Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens."

It is God Himself said there is no Evolution:
(Gen 1:24) Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, [each] according to its kind"; and it was so.

So, you created your own god who requires a mechanism called evolution for creation, to fit your theory. hmm..

The God of the Bible clearly speaks out, there is not a single living creature that will ever going to bring forth creature of another kind, in other words, no evolution.

 

[Grazer]

God created everything through His Word - not through a "mechanism":
(Gen 1:11) Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb [that] yields seed, [and] the fruit tree [that] yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed [is] in itself, on the earth"; and it was so.
(Gen 1:20) Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens."

It is God Himself said there is no Evolution:
(Gen 1:24) Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, [each] according to its kind"; and it was so.

So, you created your own god who requires a mechanism called evolution for creation, to fit your theory. hmm..

The God of the Bible clearly speaks out, there is not a single living creature that will ever going to bring forth creature of another kind, in other words, no evolution.

With the greatest of respect, either you have not read my post fully or not understood it because you are addressing points that I haven't made. I didn't say God used evolution.

 

[Grazer]

Pathetic. Theologians? Bah. Who needs them?

In what way is it pathetic?

 

[felix]

With the greatest of respect, either you have not read my post fully or not understood it because you are addressing points that I haven't made. I didn't say God used evolution.

If you read my post carefully, it was God who said there is no evolution.

 

[Grazer]

If you read my post carefully, it was God who said there is no evolution.

Yes but I never argued to the contrary. I argued that not everyone has taken a literalistic interpretation but that doesn't automatically mean evolution since people before the theory of evolution was even first conceived didn't always take Genesis as literalistic history.