Theory of evolution compatible with christianity

[memories]

I think evolution is compatible with Christianity, the Vatican also admits that evolution does not in any way threaten the Christian message, I see the bible as a book that must not be taken all literally, this is the views some saints like st-Augustine had of the bible, so I accepted the theory of evolution as a reliable theory.

Any reasons why I should view it otherwise?

[discerner]

What kind of evolution do you think is compatible? The kind that denies God's existence and says things just came to be through chance? You know the Bible tells us how things came to be in Genesis. That's good enough for me. I don't believe evolution is compatible with Christianity myself. And I don't, sorry, really care what the Vatican has to say. And if evolution says there is no Creator/God then it certainly does interfere with the Christian message. As far as Bible interpretation, this is what I hold to:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-hermeneutics.html

[memories]

Originally Posted by discerner

What kind of evolution do you think is compatible? The kind that denies God's existence and says things just came to be through chance? You know the Bible tells us how things came to be in Genesis. That's good enough for me. I don't believe evolution is compatible with Christianity myself. And I don't, sorry, really care what the Vatican has to say. And if evolution says there is no Creator/God then it certainly does interfere with the Christian message. As far as Bible interpretation, this is what I hold to:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-hermeneutics.html

Well hardly, the message in genesis must not be taken litterally, like John Paul the second said ''if the body comes from prexisting material the soul is from God.'' so its really not all that threathning once you understand that the story in genesis is a poetic story that must not be taken litterally.

You know, eve being created from a rib and all that stuff, it must not be taken litterally.


I dont believe in chance I believe in design, but evolution was probably a tool used by God to achieve design.

[gosaints]

Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)

[gosaints]

Evolution has limits and it's limits are prior revelation given to us by God. It cannot contradict truth already revealed to us by God Himself.

I don't think evolution can get around human history being 6000 years though.

[tdodds74]

Originally Posted by memories

You know, eve being created from a rib and all that stuff, it must not be taken litterally.

Really? Why not? Why couldn't God have caused a deep sleep to come over Adam and from his rib make a woman?

God didn't FORM man from the dust of the ground? Do you know what is contained in that word - FORM?

The fact that you acknowledge her as a woman - which you do right? - confirms that you believe the 'rib story'. Woman - means taken out of man.

I dont believe in chance I believe in design, but evolution was probably a tool used by God to achieve design.

Explain the correlation between absolute randomness and design?

I'm not sure you believe in evolution as much as you want a scientific explanation that requires a faith in God to understand. There is nothing in pure science that denies the account of creation as God has chosen to reveal it. There is much in Scripture that counters the theory (yes a theory) of evolution and it's many transformations to make it seem more 'christian'.

[memories]

Originally Posted by tdodds74

Really? Why not? Why couldn't God have caused a deep sleep to come over Adam and from his rib make a woman?

Well for example ''creating a woman from a ribb'' if taken litterally is absurd.

. There is much in Scripture that counters the theory (yes a theory) of evolution and it's many transformations to make it seem more 'christian'

I dont think we are meant to use scripture tu evaluate science, Im just sayin...

God didn't FORM man from the dust of the ground? Do you know what is contained in that word - FORM?

It takes more than dust to create a human being.

Explain the correlation between absolute randomness and design?

The fact I think the universe was desinged is because of the fine tuning present in the universe, take the laws of gravity for example, they must be really fine tuned for a life permitting universe, mabey evolution is another part of this fine tuning? food for tought.

There is nothing in pure science that denies the account of creation as God has chosen to reveal it

No, because science does not try to deny these stories. They are no scientific studies that are needed to show that we cant create woman from ribs.

The fact that you acknowledge her as a woman - which you do right? - confirms that you believe the 'rib story'. Woman - means taken out of man.

How so? the animal kingdom has both females and males, that dosen't mean that one of them was taken from the rib of the other.

[tdodds74]

Originally Posted by memories

Well for example ''creating a woman from a ribb'' if taken litterally is absurd.

Any more absurd than speaking a universe into existence?
Any more absurd than coming to die for the offences of one's enemies?
Any more absurd than walking on water?
Any more absurd than being born of a virgin?
Any more absurd than using light to strike down an enemy and convert his soul?

I dont think we are meant to use scripture tu evaluate science, Im just sayin...

In your own wisdom ... God has used the simplest of things to confound the wisdom of this world. Looking at salvation logically will make you mock God - looking at it from the vantage point of faith will make you eternally redeemed.

It takes more than dust to create a human being.

In your estimation - but since you've never made one; who are you to say?

The fact I think the universe was desinged is because of the fine tuning present in the universe, take the laws of gravity for example, they must be really fine tuned for a life permitting universe, mabey evolution is another part of this fine tuning? food for tought.

How can you have fine tuning that happens purely randomly? So every improvement to get it to a fine tuned state was a completely random event that ended up always going in the same direction and achieving a harmonious result? What food for thought is there in that? I'd rather not waste my time doing a deep thought on that.

No, because science does not try to deny these stories. They are no scientific studies that are needed to show that we cant create woman from ribs.

Just because you can't do it, doesn't rule out it can't be done or that it wasn't done. God alone is creator - man will never produce another being from anything. God did it from dust and breathed in the breath of life.

How so? the animal kingdom has both females and males, that dosen't mean that one of them was taken from the rib of the other.

Male and female is not man and woman - strictly speaking. Man is male and woman is female; but male/female is only part of the set of descriptors for that which is known as man and woman. Do you think humans are merely higher order animals?

[forHim]

Originally Posted by memories

Well for example ''creating a woman from a ribb'' if taken litterally is absurd.

I dont think we are meant to use scripture tu evaluate science, Im just sayin...

It takes more than dust to create a human being.

The fact I think the universe was desinged is because of the fine tuning present in the universe, take the laws of gravity for example, they must be really fine tuned for a life permitting universe, mabey evolution is another part of this fine tuning? food for tought.

No, because science does not try to deny these stories. They are no scientific studies that are needed to show that we cant create woman from ribs.

How so? the animal kingdom has both females and males, that dosen't mean that one of them was taken from the rib of the other.

Now it's about ribs? Are you going to be asking about slavery and why God has eternal punishment in hell also? Oh that's right...........

[gosaints]

Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)

4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

Because of the growing scientific evidence some consideration must be taken into account when it comes to evolution. As the OP stated it is possible for evolution to be compatible with the christian faith.

Tdodds your continual reference to evolution as being just a 'theory' is very disingenous considering your background.

"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition."

[forHim]

Originally Posted by gosaints

Because of the growing scientific evidence some consideration must be taken into account when it comes to evolution. As the OP stated it is possible for evolution to be compatible with the christian faith.

Tdodds your continual reference to evolution as being just a 'theory' is very disingenous considering your background.

As the definition shows, evolution is not even a theory. Yet you call it the "theory" of evolution.

And, by the way, evolution is not compatable with true Christianity. Your christianity it may be.

[TomS]

Originally Posted by forHim

And, by the way, evolution is not compatable with true Christianity. Your christianity it may be.

When you don't have a point to make it's always best to insult Jesus' Church.

[forHim]

Originally Posted by TomS

When you don't have a point to make it's always best to insult Jesus' Church.

The rcc is not Jesus Christ's church, so there is no insult to my Savior. BTW, the point made was that evolution is not compatible with true Christianity.

The fact that the rcc thinks that there is merit to the religion of evolution, demonstrates that they are not of God, let alone Jesus's church.

John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

[discerner]

Originally Posted by memories

Well hardly, the message in genesis must not be taken litterally, like John Paul the second said ''if the body comes from prexisting material the soul is from God.'' so its really not all that threathning once you understand that the story in genesis is a poetic story that must not be taken litterally.

You know, eve being created from a rib and all that stuff, it must not be taken litterally.


I dont believe in chance I believe in design, but evolution was probably a tool used by God to achieve design.

I beg your pardon but there is nothing at all in the text to lead me to not take it literally and I most certainly do take it literally. Yes, God took a rib from Adam's side and created Eve, just as He said. Sorry to hear you don't believe what God says. Your god appears to be extremely limited. If something seems absurd to YOU, He cannot do it. Even if He says He did. I suggest you read the link I provided on biblical hermeneutics and I really pray God to open your eyes. Evolution is not compatible with what He reveals in His word.

[discerner]

Originally Posted by gosaints

Because of the growing scientific evidence some consideration must be taken into account when it comes to evolution. As the OP stated it is possible for evolution to be compatible with the christian faith.

Tdodds your continual reference to evolution as being just a 'theory' is very disingenous considering your background.

I do not in any way feel the need to consider man's fallible scientific "evidence" in reading the Bible. I believe God and, no, evolution does NOT have to be taken into account. I do not interpret His word according to what men say. Evolution IS just a theory and it's NOT compatible with either the Bible or the Christian faith.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by memories

I think evolution is compatible with Christianity, the Vatican also admits that evolution does not in any way threaten the Christian message, I see the bible as a book that must not be taken all literally, this is the views some saints like st-Augustine had of the bible, so I accepted the theory of evolution as a reliable theory.

Any reasons why I should view it otherwise?

Either the bible is ALL 100% correct and true or God is a liar and your faith is in vain. God's ways are not man's ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. Just because someone else regardless of who they were or who they are accepts something false, that doesn't make it true. You are about to get more information then you bargained for, but if you take the time to read it honestly asking the Lord to reveal the truth to you, then at least you'll have more reliable information to base your beliefs on. Personally I could care less what other human being say or have said. I rely only on God and what He says. If He said it then I believe it. My God does not lie nor does He deceive people in any other way.

The Bible is an historical document of demonstrated accuracy and reliability. In every area in which it can be checked-out—historically, culturally, geographically, scientifically, and so on—it has been verified as factual by extra-biblical sources. It is full of information on the history of the Jews and other ancient civilizations, as well as early Christianity. It presents unique and invaluable information on the customs, languages, cultures, ethics, and religion of what is the foundation of all Western civilization.......

.....The first step in dealing with these questions of inerrancy is to clarify what a literal interpretation of the Scriptures really means.

As we’ve seen, the original manuscripts of the Bible are unavailable to us, but the science of textual criticism has proven beyond doubt that the copies we currently possess are nearly 100 percent accurate to the autographs. Although this in itself does not prove that the Bible is inerrant, it does guarantee that the Bible contains few errors due to textual transmission.

Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. This means that the Holy Spirit, working in the hearts and minds of chosen men, authored the Bible so that what God wanted recorded was recorded. However, this doesn’t mean that God acted as a divine stenographer, dictating the Bible word for word. Rather, God superintended the writing of Scripture, retaining the authors’ own writing styles and personalities, so that the end product was God’s.

Taking the Bible literally, then, like believing it is inerrant, does not mean that every word or phrase denotes only its exact literal meaning. The human authors of Scripture used the same literary techniques as other authors. Figures of speech in the Bible should be treated the same as figures of speech found in any other piece of literature. In John 16:25, 29–30, for example, Jesus states that He speaks in “figurative language” (nasv). When Jesus says “I am the door,” common sense and normal language usage tells us He is not literally calling Himself a door. When Peter calls Satan a “roaring lion, seeking someone to devour,” we know from other passages that Satan is not really a lion and that he doesn’t really eat people. People do not always communicate to each other in an exact literal fashion, and we shouldn’t expect God to speak to us differently. God used normal modes of language in the Bible. He spoke to us as we speak to each other.

Actually, it is common sense that God would inspire the authors of the Bible to use normal language. To claim otherwise is to question the ability of God to communicate truthfully and accurately. God created man to love and to have fellowship with Him. This requires communication between them. If God wishes to convey to us important truths (e.g., how to receive eternal life), He would unquestionably do so in a way we could easily understand. He would use normal human language. Thus, figures of speech used in Scripture, such as metaphors and personifications, would be easily recognized and understood, which is what we find to be true.

The Bible is also a historical document because God chose to reveal Himself within a historical context. It would be inconsistent with revelation if the Bible contained inaccurate historical information.

Inerrancy, then, simply means that the Bible contains truthful information revealed through normal methods of communication, and what it relates is without error. This applies not only to spiritual truths, such as salvation through Jesus Christ, but to historical, geological, and scientific matters (e.g., the fall of Adam is a true historical account of sin entering humanity; the Noahic flood resulted in catastrophic changes seen in the geological record; creation was by divine mandate rather than naturalistic evolution).

But why should biblical inerrancy be accepted as true? I could cite numerous reasons, but I’ll simply focus on six here. Although all of these would not convince every skeptic, they do show the extreme importance of inerrancy to the Christian faith.

Christians claim the Bible is God’s written Word, and as such, it is their primary source of authority. Why? Because God is the Bible’s ultimate author (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21), and in it He has revealed Himself and His plan for mankind.

The reason inerrancy is so vital to the Bible’s authority is that without inerrancy, this authority is baseless. For example, if the Bible contains error, how do we know that the gospel message (salvation through Jesus) is true? Perhaps some of the errors in the Bible are found in the teachings ascribed to Jesus. You can’t have any assurance that an inerrant gospel appears in an errant Bible.

Moreover, if the Bible contains error, who determines where the error lies? The answer has to be human beings. Therefore man becomes an authority over Scripture because it is up to him to decide what’s true and what’s false. Man, not God, becomes the determining factor of what is divine revelation. But because man is fallible and makes mistakes, he might judge wrongly. He might even interpret the Bible heretically. In fact, church history stands as a witness that this has sometimes happened.

So if man becomes the authority over Scripture, the Bible loses its authority and we lose our moorings. We end up adrift in a dangerous sea of fluctuating opinions, ulterior motives, and half-truths.

Another problem arises if inerrancy is rejected. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and other false religions make the same claim as Christianity, that they are the only true religion. But the truth of Christianity does not rest on the subjective, personal experience of men independent of objective (testable) revelation. Christianity is a historical religion grounded on objective, verifiable facts. No other religion or cult in the world can make this claim and then substantiate it. For this reason, Christianity stands elevated above all other religions as the one true faith. But if we admit to error and allow human beings to become the determining factor of what is truth in Scripture, we reduce Christianity to the same level as all other religions. Its authority becomes human subjectivity and opinion. On the other hand, if the Bible is God’s inerrant Word, we have an objective and absolute standard for judging and rejecting the claims of false religions and their false prophets.

The historical reliability of the Bible is the foundation for the inerrancy of Scripture. The Bible claims to be inerrant, as we’ll see in a few moments. However, no matter what the Bible claims about itself, if it is not reliable, we could not trust what it says in any area, including inerrancy. On the other hand, if the Bible is a reliable, trustworthy document, then what it says about itself can be trusted. And we saw this fact verified in Chapter 3.

Therefore, since we found the Bible inerrant in all areas in which it can be checked out, we are logically consistent to insist that problem passages (i.e., passages that appear to contain historical or scientific error due to the current unavailability of extra-biblical verification) will eventually be settled in favor of inerrancy. Over the past hundred years, scores of so-called problem passages have been resolved in favor of Scripture. Clark Pinnock reports that “in 1800 the French Institute in Paris issued a list of 82 errors in the Bible which they believed would destroy Christianity. Today none of these ‘errors’ remain! With further reflection and new discoveries, these ‘errors’ were cleared away.” So it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that as additional evidence surfaces, those remaining problem texts will also be validated by nonbiblical sources.

In 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21, we’re told that what the biblical authors wrote did not flow from their own opinion or theology. Rather, “all Scripture” is inspired by God—it did not ultimately come from a human mind. It is absurd to think that all Scripture is divinely inspired and valuable for teaching and spiritual growth yet can give faulty information. God would not breathe out (which is what inspire literally means) error.

Revelation 22:18–19 and Deuteronomy 4:2 come at the inerrancy issue from a different angle. They teach that God’s Word should not be added to or subtracted from. Take note that this command occurs in both the Old and New Testaments. Also observe that Deuteronomy is the concluding book of the Old Testament Law, and Revelation is the last book of the New Testament as well as of the entire Bible. There is little doubt that this injunction covers the entire Bible. Unless God’s Word is without error, a command not to add to or subtract from Scripture loses its significance.

Consider Psalm 119:105, 130, which teaches that Scripture is designed to give understanding even to the “simple.” It would be contradictory to claim that something containing error can lead to understanding. Similarly, in 2 Timothy 3:15, God’s Word is said to give wisdom, which would be impossible if it contained mistakes.

Many other passages (such as Isa. 55:10–11; John 17:17; Titus 1:2; Heb. 4:12; 6:18) say that God cannot lie; He inspired the writing of Scripture through the Holy Spirit; Scripture was written clearly and contains specific, truthful information; it should not be changed in any way; and it is adequate for guidance in all matters of Christian living. These claims are totally inconsistent with an errant Bible, but they do support inerrancy..........

......Jesus accepted and taught the inerrancy of Scripture. The authors of the Old and New Testaments believed the same. The early church fathers accepted the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and treated it as such in their sermons and writings. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and countless other theologians and scholars from other disciplines have embraced the inerrancy of Scripture. For two thousand years, the church has accepted the Bible, as originally inspired and recorded, to be free from error in all that it says. God condemns hypocrisy and false testimony on all fronts. It is unthinkable that a sovereign and holy God would allow error to infiltrate the Bible.

Since the Bible is God’s inerrant record of what He wants us to know and do, what it says about moral standards, the human condition, the remedy for sin, the path to salvation and eternal life, the way to a more abundant life here … everything it affirms, we should accept as true. What the Bible says, God says. And when God speaks, we better listen.

Story, D. (1997). Defending your faith. Originally published: Nashville : T. Nelson, c1992. (33). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.


What makes the Bible so special?

Christianity believes and teaches that the Bible alone is the revealed Word of God. Even though it was written by men, the ultimate author was God Almighty. This claim was not invented by the Church, but is the claim the Bible makes for itself.

“The word of the Lord endures forever” (I Peter 1:25, MLB). “All Scripture is God-breathed” (II Timothy 3:16, MLB). “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (II Peter 1:21, KJV).

Over 2,000 times in the Old Testament alone there are clauses such as “And God spoke to Moses,” “the word of the Lord came unto Jonah,” and “God said.” Moreover, the Bible claims to be a record of the words and deeds of God, thus the Bible views itself as God’s Word.

The mere fact that the Bible claims to be the Word of God does not prove that it is such, for there are other books that make similar claims. The difference is that the Scriptures contain indisputable evidence as being the Word of God.

One reason that the Bible is different from other books is its unity. Although this book was composed by men, its unity betrays the hand of the Almighty. The Bible was written over a period of about 1,500 years by more than forty different human authors. These authors came from a variety of backgrounds, including Joshua (a military general), Daniel (a prime minister), Peter (a fisherman), and Nehemiah (a cupbearer).

The authors of the various books wrote in different places, such as the wilderness (Moses), prison (Paul), and Patmos exile (John). The biblical writings were composed on three different continents (Africa, Asia, and Europe), and in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).

The contents of the Bible deal with many controversial subjects. Yet, the Bible is a unity. From beginning to end, there’s one unfolding story of God’s plan of salvation for mankind. This salvation is through the person of Jesus Christ (John 14:6). Jesus Himself testified that He was the theme of the entire Bible.

“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me… For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:39, 46, 47, KJV).

In another place, “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27, kjv; see also Luke 24:44).

The Old Testament is the preparation (Isaiah 40:3). The Gospels are the manifestation (John 1:29). The Book of Acts is the propagation (Acts 1:8). The Epistles give the explanation (Colossians 1:27). The Book of Revelation is the consummation (Revelation 1:7). The Bible is all about Jesus.

The entire Bible is a unity with each part needing the others to be complete. Dr. W. F. Albright puts it this way: “To the writers of the New Testament, the Hebrew Bible was Holy Scripture and they were the direct heirs of its prophets. It is, accordingly, quite impossible to understand the New Testament without recognizing that its purpose was to supplement and explain the Hebrew Bible.

“Any attempt to go back to the sources of Christianity without accepting the entire Bible as our guide is thus doomed to failure” (cited by Roger T. Forster and V. Paul Marston, That’s a Good Question, p. 67).

Lest anyone think this isn’t something marvelous, we’d like to give you this challenge. Find ten people from your local area who have similar educational backgrounds, all speak the same language, and all are from basically the same culture, then separate them and ask them to write their opinion on only one controversial subject, such as the meaning of life.

When they have finished, compare the conclusions of these ten writers. Do they agree with each other? Of course not. But the Bible did not consist of merely ten authors, but forty. It was not written in one generation, but over a period of 1,500 years; not by authors with the same education, culture, or language, but with vastly different education, many different cultures, from three continents and three different languages, and finally not just one subject but hundreds.

And yet the Bible is a unity. There is complete harmony, which cannot be explained by coincidence or collusion. The unity of the Bible is a strong argument in favor of its divine inspiration.

The unity of the Scriptures is only one reason among many which supports the Bible’s claim to be the divine Word of God. Others which could be explained in detail are the testimony of the early Church, the witness of history and archaeology, and the evidence of changed lives throughout the centuries, to name but a few.

These factors led the great archaeologist, W. F. Albright, to conclude, “The Bible towers in content above all earlier religious literature; and it towers just as impressively over all subsequent literature in the direct simplicity of its message and the catholicity of its appeal to men of all lands and times” (The Christian Century, November, 1958).

The Bible is special. It is unique. No other book has any such credentials. No other book even comes close. “England has two books, the Bible and Shakespeare. England made Shakespeare, but the Bible made England” (Victor Hugo, cited by Mead, Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations, p. 49).

McDowell, J., & Stewart, D. D. (1993). Answers to tough questions. Originally published: San Bernardino, Calif. : Here's Life Publishers, c1980. Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.

[tdodds74]

Originally Posted by gosaints

Tdodds your continual reference to evolution as being just a 'theory' is very disingenous considering your background.

"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition."

In this case they do - you've got a theory of evolution that denies God - yet you have some trying to insert God into it. That must of necessity place them in opposition. Evolution by definition excludes God - you just have an RCC who wants to satisfy as many curiosities as it can. Thus it mixes the godless with Scripture. A known act of the RCC for quite some time now. After all isn't that what they did to recruit the masses (no pun intended) from around the globe? Compromise appeals to those who are not lead by the Spirit - truth excludes compromise by definition.

PS: Facts are neutral by definition as well ... you can have true facts and you can have untrue facts.

[Richard]

Memories wrote

Well for example ''creating a woman from a ribb'' if taken litterally is absurd.

It is only absurd to someone if they are seeing this only through the eyes of man and not through the eyes of the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 2:9-12But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

[forHim]

I find it interesting that there has been no response from memories on this thread. It appears that he has been found out and is retreating.
No loss!!!!

[discerner]

Yes, I was hoping he would respond to Cindy's post.

[discerner]

Originally Posted by Richard

Memories wrote


It is only absurd to someone if they are seeing this only through the eyes of man and not through the eyes of the Spirit.

Exactly. Nothing is absurd about believing what God has revealed and He said a rib was taken from Adam and He made Eve. He is God, after all.

[memories]

Originally Posted by forHim

I find it interesting that there has been no response from memories on this thread. It appears that he has been found out and is retreating.
No loss!!!!

Im still here, I just think its sad that some people will deny an accepted theory based on empirical evidence that has proven itself time and again and all this because of poetic and dated passages that must not all be taken litterally.

I think that if the body comes from prexisting material the soul is from God.

I did not see any robust evidence against evolution and natural selection provided here.

It is only absurd to someone if they are seeing this only through the eyes of man and not through the eyes of the Spirit.

Special pleading.

[Lauren]

Originally Posted by memories

The same kind of passages that claim that the earth is the center of the universe, yet I don't think you will deny that this is false, will you??

What passages would those be?

[memories]

''I beg your pardon but there is nothing at all in the text to lead me to not take it literally and I most certainly do take it literally.

Well, there are problems there right out of the gate. If you are to take it literally, which of the two creation stories is the literal one? They can't both be taken literally, because they contradict each other, specifically with regard to a) the order of events, and b) to the motivation for some of those events. Firstly, in one, we have Adam created, then the animals as companions, and only after that, Eve, when it was deemed that the animals weren't sufficient companionship. In the other, the animals are made first and then Adam and Eve at the same time. This is pretty hard to deal with if you take a literal interpretation.

Yes, God took a rib from Adam's side and created Eve, just as He said.

The deep problem there is that, literal reading or not, Adam and Eve literally did not exist. There was no such thing as the first pair of humans. We know from evolution that there is a minimum population size necessary to circumvent suhc things as deep genetic problems arising from not enough variation in the gene pool.

Sorry to hear you don't believe what God says. Your god appears to be extremely limited. If something seems absurd to YOU, He cannot do it. Even if He says He did.

Well, I would be asking here for critically robust evidence that this entity actually said anything.

I suggest you read the link I provided on biblical hermeneutics and I really pray God to open your eyes.

The problem with hermeneutics is obvious. If we must apply hermeneutics to god's word, then it isn't god's word anymore. If we are to believe that this entity is the supreme being, then who are we to mash and mangle his words to suit our own ends? Surely they should stand on their own, and be taken as such. Further, the concepts of a literal interpretation alongside any degree of hermeneutic is self-contradictory. You can't have both, because each makes the other moot by definition.

Evolution is not compatible with what He reveals in His word.''

Agreed. So we have to either sit with the facts or take it as literal. We can't have both. In any event, there is no true incompatability between evolution and a deity, only between evolution and a literal interpretation.

[Kevin4Jesus]

I can understand how many in this group feel that evolution is a plausible explanation for our existence. Roman Catholicism has removed authority from God’ Holy Word and given it to the Magisterium. This is what happens when men are permitted to exalt themselves above God. I have come to understand theories such as this to be “damnable heresies”. Come on people, what about entropy?