Evolution

"can you please point out where i have gone wrong since you obviously read the bible.and besides i can interpret it any way i want , i may be wrong but can you show me where God is wrong?"Hi Mike remember me? The evolutionary CREATIONIST. Yes I do know a few things about the Bible, and yes I have read most of it. Like you said you can interpret the Bible anyway you want, but some interpretations are just not founded in scripture. I would argue this is one of them. Please read this http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/EvolutionaryCreation.htm it articulates my view point very well. Definately read the part about the interpretation of Genesis."of course creationists wouldnt argue with God or his word
but arrogant evolutionists would probably dare to"I would argue otherwise, they get so wrapped up in the way they think that God SHOULD have created the Earth that they can't see any other method as being correct. What will you do if you get to Heaven and find out that you're wrong?------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

I would argue otherwise, they get so wrapped up in the way they think that God SHOULD have created the Earth that they can't see any other method as being correct. What will you do if you get to Heaven and find out that you're wrong?Would you agree then that genesis as read from a normal point of view (i am not a scrutineer), suggests God created the heavens and the earth.
i accept this as truth , anything else is just my opinion . also he says he done it in 6 days?Also i think somewhere it was mentioned that in the bible somewhere it says a thousand years is as a day to GOD, for me , my opinion is that this simply means time has no influence on a supernatural God ,where
as we think a day without food is long! just my opinion thoughand yes if God says ive interperated his word wrong on that day i will say 'i was wrong'

quote:

---

besides i can interpret it [the bible] any way i want

---

quote:

---

and yes if God says ive interperated his word wrong on that day i will say 'i was wrong'

---

So, then if i interpret the bible as meaning that i should spend my life in service of Satan, and that bestiality is the way to heaven, then 'on that day' I can be let off by just saying 'I was wrong'! Cool!

quote:

---

of course creationists wouldnt argue with God or his word

---

They do it all the time by inventing stories that aren't in the Bible, based on scant evidence, just to make it fit undeniable evidence in nature. The worst of them actually make money by doing this.

quote:

---

but arrogant evolutionists would probably dare to

---

Judge not, lest you be judged yourself. I interpret the information I have found as supporting evolution, so I suppose that would make me an evolutionist. But I don't argue with God or with anything that I have reason to believe as his word. You accusing me thereof without cause is a sin, according to your book. Let's see if you can find scripture that says otherwise.

What do you consider a normal point of view? I consider my explanation that God allowed the Big Bang to happen and life to unfold acording to His natural law quite a "normal" point of view. I believe that God used "natural and ordinary" (not miraculous) means to create. So yes I believe that First of all, he didn't say anything... the writer that was inspired by God did. Secondly, the passages of Genesis should be taken as divine poetry, NOT a scientific textbook. The basic themes of Genesis still remain true 1)that God created everything 2)that his creation is good 3)that he strives to have a personal relationship with us. Like I said before, there are about 8 different translations for the Hebrew word that means day (some other meanings are year, and age). To say that one definition is better than the other is pure speculation. Again, take this as metaphor, as it was intended.let me expound on this point some more. Take the parable of the mustard seed. Jesus calls the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds. A simple side by side comparison with an orchid seed reveals that the orchid seed is much smaller. Are you going to claim that science is wrong in the measurement of orchid seeds now? Of course not. Think about what would have happened if Jesus would have inserted the orchid seed into that parable. Not one person would have any clue about what he was talking about. Now think about what would have happened if God had inspired someone in the terms of Big Bang cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution? These concepts boggle my mind, let alone someone that lived several thousands of years ago.The ancient Hebrews saw that a cow produced a cow... so it must have always have been like that. They saw a gigantic blue sphere over the Earth that occasionally leaked on them... so it must be a dome of water. God had to relate to them in a way that they could understand and comprehend it.

quote:

---

Would you agree then that genesis as read from a normal point of view (i am not a scrutineer), suggests God created the heavens and the earth. i accept this as truth , anything else is just my opinion . also he says he done it in 6 days?

---

I would agree that Genesis, as read from a typical, Western, American point of view says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. However, Genesis was not written by a typical, Western, American person, but by a Hebrew person, who probably had it handed down orally to him through generations of other middle easterners.I understand the general, scholarly opinion to be that Hebrews and their neighbors were probably not too worried about the accuracy of the six days. Origen, who was an Egyptian, not a Hebrew, basically said (my paraphrase, so I don't have to go look it up), "Surely none of us are so stupid as to think that man fell by literally eating a piece of fruit off a tree!" I paraphrased, but I didn't add the word stupid; Origen used it. From what I can tell, scholarly opinion holds that the average Hebrew would likely have agreed with him, except the average Hebrew would never even have wondered about the accuracy or inaccuracy of the story.You can't just push your American foibles onto an Eastern text, and the Law of Moses is an Eastern text.edit: I forgot to mention that Origen was a well-respected Christian teacher from the early 200's, when Christianity was still not fully Romanized, at least in the middle East. This was before science said the world was old, but Origen still thought it was silly to take Genesis literally.[This message has been edited by truthlover, 04-30-2003]

This is exactly my point. I don't think I could have said it any better myself.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein