1. Human beings cannot understand abstract, invisible realities without first learning visible, concrete references. Electricity is a good example. Spiritual matters are likewise not amenable to direct mental comprehension.
2. It is impossible to understand the Bible merely with the finite human mind alone, regardless of how much time and theology you employ to do so. The truths contained in the Bible must be REVEALED spiritually in order to be correctly understood mentally.
3. The best means to convey this is the illustration of learning a language. You cannot directly learn a language, the components of the language must first be directly correlated to visible concrete objects. A human being (a child, for instance) is first shown a visible picture of a physical object and then the audible or written symbolic language component is linked to it to give comprehension.
4. Likewise, the spiritual reality to come forth in the New Testament would be totally incomprehensible without firstly having the detailed typology of the Old Testament.
This is the crux of the reason why the mind alone is incapable of understanding the Bible: some of the accounts are literal, and some are allegorical. Without revelation, you confuse the two and fall into systematized error.
5. For example: "Behold the Lamb of God". Certainly allegorical- Christ is not being described as the 4-legged offspring of a sheep here. 'The New Jerusalem, the bride of the lamb'. Is the lamb marrying a physical city? No! Again, obviously allegorical. If the Bible is the Word of God, then scientific, empirical knowledge cannot help but verify it. Any apparent discrepancy is due to one of three things: A. Unjustified, inductive extrapolations of scientific findings. B. Incorrect, dogmatic (present on both sides of the E. vs. C. issue) interpretations of either secular or scriptural evidence. C. Lack of evidence in critical, specific areas for the purpose of preserving free will. Example: IF science ascertained factually that there was no fossil record prior to 6,000 years ago (i. e.: Adam and Eve, the human race magically and instantaneously appeared) don't you realize that this would be such prima facie evidence of direct Divine intervention that it would interfere with free will?
Now, to apply these parameters to the crux of the matter.
Life, like electricity, is abstract and mysterious: it cannot be analyzed and comprehended directly. So any depiction of the process of life must be communicated allegorically.
6. The Bible is a book of LIFE, NOT a book of knowledge. Genesis Chapter One is an account of the propagation of life, NOT creation per se. It is an allegorical depiction of the relationship of the Spirit, the Word, light, and life. It is NOT a scientific chronology of creation. If a person interprets it literally instead of allegorically, then they are doomed to try to fit the square peg of the fossil record into the round hole of their mistaken (and incorrect scripturally) dogmatic, religious fallacy.
To my dear brothers and sisters: When did 'Creationism, et. al.' become an article of the faith? Why is it virtually considered heresy to believe that God may have used evolution to create man?
To those who are not yet my brothers and sisters: The world is headed inexorably in one direction, and no one can prevent it. Christ will return and, by all indications, sooner not later. THIS FACT, and not any amount of accumulation of the details of the physical universe, needs to be your primary consideration. The outward picture of the Flood and the Ark is a type foretelling a spiritual reality to come. It would be 'wise and prudent' for you to expend a modicum of time and effort to ascertain what the 'ark' symbolizes, and how you can enter into Him before the flood comes.
Okay: additional clarification. No human being has ever seen electricity. We are able to evaluate electricity indirectly by measuring its effects and thus determine its properties. No human being has ever seen or captured life. Again, the characteristics of life have to be observed indirectly. The properties and characteristics of inorganic matter do not change under direct analysis. The same is not true for organic matter. If you dissect it, it dies and, consequently, there is a change in its properties and characteristics. Maybe radio waves are a better illustration than electricity. They definitely exist, but are totally invisible and undetectable to our five senses. Likewise, spiritual matters are not directly detectable or perceivable by the human mind. The mind is not the correct organ to receive spiritual revelation- it is, however, the correct organ to understand what the human spirit receives. 'The soulish man does not receive the things of the Spirit, for they are foolishness to him.' 'That which is born of Spirit is spirit.' 'God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit.' '...dividing the soul from the spirit.' 'The mind set on the spirit...' 'The letter (of the Bible) kills, but the Spirit gives life.' Whether or not the Bible is dead-letter knowledge to a reader, or whether it gives life (and revelation) depends on which organ the reader uses to touch it: only the mind; or with the mind set on the spirit. I reiterate: the six-day account in Genesis is NOT an account of creation sequentially. Therefore the chronological discrepancy of the order of mentioning of the six forms of life in it with the known order from evolution, etc. is NOT a conflict- it is moot. And if your traditional dogmatism is that the days were literal 24-hour days, you are totally removed from truth- both scientific AND scripturally. Time periods were not assigned to the luminaries until the fourth day. It is theologically unjustified and incorrect to believe in a 'young earth'.
I. The Bible is unique There is no comparison with any other works of mankind. No other books had anywhere near the number of contributors (39+), nor have any been written over such a long span of time (1,600 years). Yet it is profoundly cohesive in all of its contents.
II. The Bible is God's word In addition to the infinite profundity of the whole, it contains prophecies of many events that are still future in terms of time. These are given with adequate and specific details to be able to unmistakably predict in advance the events recorded. It is not possible that it is merely human in origin because many of its ramifications are beyond human capabilities.
III. Creationism aka 'Intelligent Design' are not scientific disciplines and therefore should not be taught as such in schools. "The scientific view of the Universe is such as to admit only those phenomena that can, in one way or another, be observed in a fashion accessible to all, and to admit those generalizations (which we call laws of nature) that can be induced from those observations." Any explanation of observed phenomena, that invokes to any extent supernatural influence such as divine motivation, is thus inherently self-disqualified from being a scientific discipline.
IV. Evolution is valid Evolution, however, is the only valid scientific theory which adequately explains the know data. And it has been verified by the correlation of the relevant data corresponding to its testable conclusions.
Objectively consider that God may have used evolution to create man. Do not disregard so doing due to bias, dogmatism, or love of argumentation.
To avoid any possible misunderstanding, let me finally, firmly, and completely clarify my position regarding 'Evolution vs. Creationism, et. al.' : It is absolutely vain babbling (spiritually speaking) to speculate about man's origins. Such speculation is totally from the wrong tree- the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and as such it is totally incapable of conveying spiritual nourishment and edification. I have no motive whatsoever to attempt to validate 'Evolution'. However, I am 100% against any and all persons (regardless of purity of motivation) who in any way make the disbelief in Evolution a tenet of the Christian Faith, a Faith given once to all whom God has chosen to be His people. I challenge anyone to dispute the following assertion: "It is completely possible to believe in 'Evolution' and to receive Christ as one's personal Savior, becoming genuinely born again."
My point did not relate Genesis to regeneration. My specific point was that a belief in the validity of evolution is not in any way a hindrance to someone receiving Christ as their Savior: by the Father embodied in the Son becoming the life-giving Spirit to enter into and become mingled with their human spirit.
Being born again is a matter of life, not knowledge. It is NOT believing in a philosophy, religion, or determining to practice certain ethics or morals. You have a physical existence because you were born biologically of a physical father. God is Spirit. Human beings are created with a human spirit to contain God. Being born again is what happens when a human being realizes and recognizes that God became a man to reach and redeem mankind whom He loves. You simply receive all that the Father is and that the Son accomplished as a free eternal gift as the Spirit into your spirit. Simple. God now has a name, and that name is Jesus. Call His name and recognize Him as Lord "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except in the sSpirit". and you will be born again with God as eternal life, becoming your Father. It has to be realized experientially, subjectively.