Yes, in a sense,you can conclude that.

ya I believe in evolution.....God said it.....and BANG....it happened. That's about as far as i go.

it came about through a process of evolution, taking billions of years, just as the evolutionists claim.

I was right with ya....until this Andy. This I draw the line. If God said it took a day....it took a day. Went to the original Hebrew on this one. There is another word for day but this word here in Genesis means a 24 hour day.

Both creationists and evolutionists are right. It just depends on which way you look at it.

You are such a diplomat.....LOL.....that I do like about you. But they can't both be. One says young earth less than 10,000 years old and the other says billions of years old. There's no jelling this together.

Do not forget one thing, my dear friends. There is no difference in the Lord’s sight between one day and a thousand years; to Him the two are the same.” - Peter 3.8

In context this has to do with the delay of His return. What you are quoting doesn't seem right. What are you reading? One day is AS a thousand years not that they are the same thing.

God doesn't view time as we do and he's slow in coming back cuz he's desiring that more will come to repentence. From his viewpoint it's not that long of a time period. Once he does come back it's too late and he's giving every opportunity.

We all have different interpretations of Holy Scripture, mind, and I don’t expect everyone to agree that Genesis 1 is a metaphorical statement. Just as it can't be expected for everyone to interpret Genesis 1 literally

Hey Andy I think you hit it on the head right here. This is the crux of the whole matter. As you probably already know I do take Genesis as literal and not allegorical. I think it's dangerous to take what God has given us as literal fact and spiritualize it away. When you do this, you can make it be anything you want it to be. Thus the many religions we have.....many biblical truths have been spiritualized away and the true meaning is lost. Remember God is the God of order....Satan is the god of disorder.

I think that metaphorical statements and poetic imagery are often used in the Bible to reflect deep, spiritual truths.

Yes, the bible is both literal and symbolical. But Genesis is not symbolic but literal. The poetic books would fit your description but not Genesis. Genesis as a whole is both literal and historical. Genesis and Revelation are the two most attacked books in the bible. One is detailing our beginning and the other our ending.

I'd love to know exactly what it is that bothers you about taking Genesis literally except for the fact that it would mess with the other religions that honor evolution. Keep in mind that Christ quoted from Genesis and he never aluded to the fact that we were to do anything but believe it as a literal truth.

Remember also that Theistic evolution did not come into play until after 1859 when Origin of Species came out. In order to Marry the Darwinists with Moses in came the idea that God used evolution in his creation. It was an attempt to pacify the creationists. I don't buy that and neither do many many Christian scientists. I believe it's a lie perpertrated by the master liar himself.

I heard 475 (or so) Scientists have signed some sort of petition trying to overturn that Judge's decision in PA about not teaching the ID theory in schools. There are many scientists that believe in Creation Science. Science and creation are not mutually exclusive by any stretch. God created science.

There is much science in the bible.....read the book of Job especially. Nothing in the modern science world has disproven scripture....nothing. In fact Science so far has backed up what scripture has put forth many many years ago. Not to mention, history and archeology has as well.

That in itself is amazing.

Yes, I agree it was a bit out of context. I was trying to use it to express my point that God can also see things from ‘outside’ of space and time

While I agree with you on the space time thing. We must be careful not to push "our view" and forsake the true meaning of God's words and what he means. After all when it all comes down to it.....it really doesn't matter what you and I think at all. It's all about HIM not about you and I.....as much as we like to think the world revolves around us.......remember it revolves around the .....SON!!!.....LOL.....

Genesis 1.11/26, for example, states that mankind was created after the plants and vegetation had been put on earth; whilst Genesis 2.5-7 claims that God created man before any plants or vegetation

hmmm not getting you here. Where is the problem here?

V11 says "And God said Let the earth bring forth grass the herb yeilding seed after his kind and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind whose seed is in itself upon the earth and it was so. (third day)

V26 says: "And God said let us make man in our image after our likeness......(sixth day)

Chap 2:5-7: And every plant of the field that was in the earth and every herb of the field before it grew for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul."

I never get angry Andy about any that have opposing views so don't worry about that. Usually those that get angry have their own agenda they are trying to push. My agenda...so to speak....is not mine but God's. I'm just the messenger. I didn't make this stuff up. God said just go and tell and that's what I'm doing.

hmmm not getting you here. Where is the problem here?

I'm not sure, to be honest. There's not really a problem. All I was saying is that Chapter 2:5-7 implies that God created man before any kind of plants or vegetation existed, which contradicts Genesis chapter 1.

The New International Version says:
Chap 2:5-7: "And no shurb of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground - the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and beathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

But I think we're getting too finicky here sweetheart. This wasn't the main reason I don't interpret Genesis chapter 1 literally anyway.

My agenda...so to speak....is not mine but God's. I'm just the messenger

We're all messengers, in one form or another, speaking our own truths from our own points of view. These points of view can be quite different, however, because we're all looking at the world from the subjective realm of our own consciousness. I think that it's up to us as individuals to discern whether our views or the views we hear are aligned with 'what is so', or not. (The inner-compass, or intuition, which God has placed in our hearts can give us a good gauge to this, I believe.) As we're all at different stages of growth, our models of the world can be quite different. So I think that the real key lies in finding peace with our own views and to keep an open mind. I don't think that it matters how we interpret God's Word, because what really matters is that we're being true to ourselves. And KFC one thing that I can see that you possess is great integrity and a sincere heart, which is priceless, in my view.

It was only the perceived need to harmonise with the alleged age of the earth which led people to think anything different—it was nothing to do with the text itself.

this is direct contradiction to what you urge Andy to get out of the way and let primitive perspectives be the reality when it is clearly poetry.

I think that metaphorical statements and poetic imagery are often used in the Bible to reflect deep, spiritual truths. In my view, Genesis chapter 1 is an allegorical account, which provides insights into the purpose and meaning of Creation, rather than abstract scientific data about the universe’s formation. The latter is the role of science, the former the role of religion.

extremely well thought out. I simply cannot understand why there are those who take things literally and lose the beauty of imagery.

God's word has all the answers in there. You don't need to hear from me....it's him. He's God, not me. His word is objective while the world's way is subjective.

Yes, I agree. If we believe that God inspired the content of Genesis, (and I believe that He did), then it could be said that the objective part of Genesis chapter 1 is the underlying message, which is clear: God existed before the universe; and God created the universe.

The world’s way is subjective in the sense that we could choose not to adhere to the message at all.

we're not to interpret it....just read it.

but we can’t escape interpreting it. It’s part and parcel of coming to a conclusion about it. While you’ve come to the conclusion that Genesis 1 is a literal, scientific account, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s a piece of poetry that holds deep meaning. Both conclusions are based on subjective interpretation. I can demonstrate this principle with something you wrote:

Jesus became a maggot to show us the way out

Am I to interpret this statement literally, or is it a metaphorical statement? In order to come to a conclusion, I would have to weigh it up and see what makes better sense. Let’s follow the steps of the Creationist.

I could look up the word “maggot” in a dictionary, (just as the Creationist would look up the Hebrew for “day” and conclude that it means a literal 24-hour solar-day - even though, incidentally, the sun wasn't created until the fourth day according to a literal interpretation, which in itself is somewhat suspect). Just as the original Hebrew for “day” does not mean a billion years, so does the word “maggot” not mean “man”, or “person”.

So am I to interpret your statement literally? I could do so, but I think I would be off the ball. There are other factors that must be considered, based on logic and reason. (Okay, so this is an extreme example, and I’m having some fun with your maggot statement. But I think you can get my gist.) Even though at the end of my investigation I would conclude that “Jesus became a maggot to show us the way out”, is a metaphorical statement, I would understand the statement’s deeper meaning, which is what really counts.

Similarly, regarding Genesis 1, I think that there are many factors we should consider, based on logic and reason, apart from looking up the original Hebrew for "day", before making our conclusions. I believe that it’s unwise to put blinkers up to what our scientists are telling us, and I also think we should consider the apparent allegorical prose inherent in Genesis 1, not to mention the logical contradictions found in a literal interpretation.

we're all looking at the world from the subjective realm of our own consciousness

That's just it Andy...I'm trying to tell you. I'm not looking at it from my viewpoint

It’s easy to get a blind spot to the fact that whatever we look at, and whatever we read, we’re necessarily looking at it from our own subjective point of view - whether we’re conscious of it or not. We are also interpreting things subjectively all the time. It’s impossible for us to “get out of the way”, because it is we who are reading the text. Once we have read the text, we have to exercise our free will in order to make a conclusion. When I said that it doesn’t matter how we interpret it, I was talking about whether we interpret it metaphorically or literally. How we interpret the underlying message is a different kettle of fish, I’m sure.

It was only the perceived need to harmonise with the alleged age of the earth which led people to think anything different—it was nothing to do with the text itself.

this is direct contradiction to what you urge Andy to get out of the way and let primitive perspectives be the reality when it is clearly poetry.

I agree. I think that the Creationists’ interpretation strives to harmonise Genesis 1 with a scientific model of the world that humanity has now outgrown. It's exactly the same principle, which is very interesting.

anyway KFC, I hope these posts don't come across as bullying your point of view. The strength of your faith and your sincere beliefs tug at my heart-strings, to be honest. It must be something to do with the fact that you possess what really counts - true faith and a knowledge of Christ. Jesus said that a "child-like faith" is all we need to comprehend the Truth, and I have great admiration for warm-hearted fundamentalists like yourself. We so-called liberals might all be proved wrong one day, so stick to your guns as much as your heart, and Jesus, tells you.

From dirt we come, and to dirt we go. If literal creationists want to believe he literally sculpted us, or if others want to see the "dirt" as the primordial ooze from which we were eventually produced, to each his own.

I would go out on a limb and say such shouldn't be in school, on either side, except maybe in philosophy class. If we spent less time on pseudo-political/social theories that may or may not pan out, and more time on how to balance your FRIGGIN CHECKBOOK... well, the world would be a better place...

Call me overly conservative, but the first twelve years of school should be devoted to the concrete; the observable, repeatable, the useful. Thereafter if people want to pursue scientific discovery, great.

The fact that we are turning out kids who know Darwin's theory by rote, and yet don't pick up on it when science fiction treads all over physics tells us volumes about where we are lacking. You can sit in biology class, understand inheritance and mutation and the similarities between species, and yet never really need to waste a minute of class time mulling over philosophy.

I'd much rather see audiences so grounded in science FACT that the Speilbergs of the world can't get by without hiring a science consultant...

I'd much rather see audiences so grounded in science FACT that the Speilbergs of the world can't get by without hiring a science consultant...

Yes, I love this!! Great idea.

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=8279

Leauki: No, your offhand dismissal of ID is ignorant. Your definition of "intelligent" is the skewed one favored by Creationists. I would suggest you look deeper and realize there can be "design" without a diety, and "intelligent" doesn't require an specific entity, whether it be God or aliens. You've been programmed by the propaganda of both sides that would prefer ID to be tied to religion.