By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[YoursTrue]

When I read the two different stories of creation in Genesis, I'm not reading them as a scientific explanation of how things were created in any literal sense. I don't see that was their intent, to satisfy the scientific mind.

For instance, if I were to read it literally in a scientific way, it's confusing. How do you have plants on earth before the sun was in the sky, for instance? How did the earth have an atmosphere before the sun existed? How could the earth itself exist before the sun existed, since there would be no gravitational forces strong enough to form the planets without the sun? Etc.

To say the very least, if this was intended to be a scientific explanation of how the cosmos, our solar system, how the planet was formed, or how life literally came to be in what literal order on this planet, it doesn't jibe with any of the sciences at all, not just the theory of evolution. It's doesn't fit the law of gravity either. It doesn't fit with cosmology. It doesn't fit with any of the earth sciences. It doesn't fit any evidences we have of anything in science at all. You basically has to say that all science is all wrong in everything they say, not just the theory of evolution.

Is this what you say? That all science is wrong about everything, from physics to biology and everything in between, because your reading of Genesis doesn't fit with what all the sciences say?

To me the answer is extremely simple. The problem is reading Genesis in such a way it was not written to understood as. Its chronology was simply a matter of addressing topics about who created the various forms we have, was it the Hebrew God, or was it these other gods of the sun and the moon and the stars as the pagans believed in?

That's the true context. It was simply not meant to be understood to be teaching modern science, and asking any believer in God to jettison reason and knowledge in order to believe in the Divine. That's both absurd and obscene.

What about gravity? What about cosmology? What about geology? Do you reject all of this as well because you place your interpretation of Genesis above all the earth sciences in all areas of knowledge?

It is not theoretical. You have a misunderstanding of what "theory" means in science. It does not mean a supposition or a hunch, or a guess, or a speculation. The word actually means "an explanatory model based upon the supported data". That means the data has been confirmed as factual by scientific methods of analysis. It means the data is considered reliable. And then the "theory" part of it takes a look at all the evidence, and creates a model explaining how they fit together, and how they work.

So the "theory of evolution" really means the "story of evolution" in a real sense. Compared this to the "Creation story of Genesis", which is really the "story of the Hebrew God" to address their deity in contrast to other deities. They are different stories, explaining different things in different ways to different audiences for different purposes. They cannot be taken as competing accounts of anything.

So you not only are falling short in understanding the sciences, but you equally do not understand the biblical materials you are looking at either.

Who's rejecting biology, gravity, etc. ? Not me .Although I'll tell you something. God is greater than whatever theoretical laws may be in place.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, mainly because of the confusion and hypocrisy within Christendom itself. Unfortunately, many throw out the Bible, too.

There’s a lot in that is misunderstood… that’s why Jesus’ statement at Luke 10:21 is so appropriate & profound: only His Father, Jehovah/Yahweh, reveals it accurately. Those who don’t worship Him solely (Exodus 20:1-5), through Jesus (John 14:6), will just continue to misunderstand it.

Some poster on here once said that they thought that God would still grant an accurate understanding of His Word to someone even if they weren’t obedient to Him! The Bible’s numerous accounts of how Jehovah has felt about & dealt with those who were willfully disobedient to Him, shows otherwise.

One example of disobedience is easily observed… Jesus said his followers should love each other, and even love their enemy (John 13:35: Matthew 5:44)… yet what has been the reputation / example of Christendom in this regard? Its leaders have been encouraging their members to join in worldly conflicts & kill their brothers, since it’s inception!

No wonder Jesus said there would be “many” calling him Lord, but Jesus would call them, “workers of lawlessness”! (Matthew 7:21-23). No one should expect those organizations to have any accurate understanding granted by God, since they’re not truly following His Son. (Titus 1:16) Up to a point maybe, but once it gets inconvenient/uncomfortable, they stop.

It may be harsh, but it’s true.

The Bible reading about Josiah is certainly interesting.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well yes, sometimes it takes banging your head against reality enough to figure out walking with your eyes facing your feet isn't serving your very well.

I had this verse from the Psalms pop into my head just now. "Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?" The answer to that is fleeing into denialism. Turning our faces away from the light of knowledge, is really great way to hide from Truth, and in my way of seeing that, fleeing from God.

Faith in God does not require self-lobotomies, though it is clear many Christians believe it does and teach others it is. "You're not a Christian if you accept science and deny how I read Genesis.", for instance.

Here's the problem as I see it regarding not science, but the theory of evolution. While there are fossils and supposed dates, there is no substantive evidence showing the fish evolved to eventually become humans. As I have said, I didn't always believe that way because before I read and better understood the Bible I didn't really believe in God and I would basically accept whatever I was taught in school regarding evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Greek mythology predates the Bible, so its mythological stories also qualify as long-lived and preserved. There are also many factual references in Greek mythology as well as references to a multitude of supernatural beings. However, I highly doubt that any Christian will insist that Zeus, Hera, Ares, Athena, or any of the other deities mentioned in Greek mythology are real gods and goddesses. In fact, I'm quite confident that Christians will reject these deities and discard them as figments of people's imaginations. They will nevertheless insist that their God exists and will also point out factual references in the Bible in an effort to affirm their belief. They will not only assert that their God is real, but they will also insist that their God divinely inspired the Bible.

Can you tell me more about the Greek and possibly Roman gods? Their background, what they might have told to their worshippers? Thanks. No links, please tell me from the writings what these gods said and to whom they said whatever they did. Thanks again. After you tell me these things then you can post the link.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, mainly because of the confusion and hypocrisy within Christendom itself. Unfortunately, many throw out the Bible, too.

There’s a lot in that is misunderstood… that’s why Jesus’ statement at Luke 10:21 is so appropriate & profound: only His Father, Jehovah/Yahweh, reveals it accurately. Those who don’t worship Him solely (Exodus 20:1-5), through Jesus (John 14:6), will just continue to misunderstand it.

Some poster on here once said that they thought that God would still grant an accurate understanding of His Word to someone even if they weren’t obedient to Him! The Bible’s numerous accounts of how Jehovah has felt about & dealt with those who were willfully disobedient to Him, shows otherwise.

One example of disobedience is easily observed… Jesus said his followers should love each other, and even love their enemy (John 13:35: Matthew 5:44)… yet what has been the reputation / example of Christendom in this regard? Its leaders have been encouraging their members to join in worldly conflicts & kill their brothers, since it’s inception!

No wonder Jesus said there would be “many” calling him Lord, but Jesus would call them, “workers of lawlessness”! (Matthew 7:21-23). No one should expect those organizations to have any accurate understanding granted by God, since they’re not truly following His Son. (Titus 1:16) Up to a point maybe, but once it gets inconvenient/uncomfortable, they stop.

It may be harsh, but it’s true.

Thanks for pointing out what Jesus said at Matthew 7:21-23. Many would call him Lord but he wouldn't really hear them. "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’
23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’"

(Thanks for pointing that out.)

 

[YoursTrue]

When I read the two different stories of creation in Genesis, I'm not reading them as a scientific explanation of how things were created in any literal sense. I don't see that was their intent, to satisfy the scientific mind.

For instance, if I were to read it literally in a scientific way, it's confusing. How do you have plants on earth before the sun was in the sky, for instance? How did the earth have an atmosphere before the sun existed? How could the earth itself exist before the sun existed, since there would be no gravitational forces strong enough to form the planets without the sun? Etc.

To say the very least, if this was intended to be a scientific explanation of how the cosmos, our solar system, how the planet was formed, or how life literally came to be in what literal order on this planet, it doesn't jibe with any of the sciences at all, not just the theory of evolution. It's doesn't fit the law of gravity either. It doesn't fit with cosmology. It doesn't fit with any of the earth sciences. It doesn't fit any evidences we have of anything in science at all. You basically has to say that all science is all wrong in everything they say, not just the theory of evolution.

Is this what you say? That all science is wrong about everything, from physics to biology and everything in between, because your reading of Genesis doesn't fit with what all the sciences say?

To me the answer is extremely simple. The problem is reading Genesis in such a way it was not written to understood as. Its chronology was simply a matter of addressing topics about who created the various forms we have, was it the Hebrew God, or was it these other gods of the sun and the moon and the stars as the pagans believed in?

That's the true context. It was simply not meant to be understood to be teaching modern science, and asking any believer in God to jettison reason and knowledge in order to believe in the Divine. That's both absurd and obscene.

What about gravity? What about cosmology? What about geology? Do you reject all of this as well because you place your interpretation of Genesis above all the earth sciences in all areas of knowledge?

It is not theoretical. You have a misunderstanding of what "theory" means in science. It does not mean a supposition or a hunch, or a guess, or a speculation. The word actually means "an explanatory model based upon the supported data". That means the data has been confirmed as factual by scientific methods of analysis. It means the data is considered reliable. And then the "theory" part of it takes a look at all the evidence, and creates a model explaining how they fit together, and how they work.

So the "theory of evolution" really means the "story of evolution" in a real sense. Compared this to the "Creation story of Genesis", which is really the "story of the Hebrew God" to address their deity in contrast to other deities. They are different stories, explaining different things in different ways to different audiences for different purposes. They cannot be taken as competing accounts of anything.

So you not only are falling short in understanding the sciences, but you equally do not understand the biblical materials you are looking at either.

The book of Genesis outlining the events of creation is not a scientific treatise, but an explanation or outline of events. I see nothing to disprove that now. Going over the reason, it is because I have found that there are no real-time recordings of what actually happened per evolution. Only suppositions and suggestions, but nothing beyond the placement of fossil remains and figuring how it could have happened. The fact that few are willing to admit that concerning those taking a stand pro-evolution tells me also that there is prejudice. Nevertheless...that's the way it is.

 

[Windwalker]

Who's rejecting biology, gravity, etc. ? Not me .Although I'll tell you something. God is greater than whatever theoretical laws may be in place.

When the basis for your rejection of the theory of evolution is your reading of the book of Genesis, that it appears to you to be a literal recording of events in strict chronological order, which contradicts the order that science explains based upon the evidence it is able to reliably look at, then you also are left with the story contradicting what science has to say about all kinds of things, not just how humans came to exist. You have plant life before the sun exists which is what plants need in order to exist at all. You have a planet existing before there is any gravitational force from the sun in order to give it its form. You have an atmosphere on the earth before the sun existed, which is impossible as the entire planet would be solid ice, no plants, no atmosphere, and no liquid water. And so forth.

Now you may argue that God could have had a liquid ocean in the complete absence of any heat to make the water liquid, but why???? What sense does that make to you that the author of Genesis intended to lay out an exact chronology of a planet that was a life producing earth before the sun existed? Do you image God created all of this in a flash frozen state, only to have it thawed out on the day he created the sun and moon? I mean seriously, this cannot possibly what the authors of Genesis meant to be understood by you, can it be?

Doesn't it seem much more reasonable to say, the problem is you are reading it wrong? Yes, it is easier to say that.

Here's the problem as I see it regarding not science, but the theory of evolution. While there are fossils and supposed dates, there is no substantive evidence showing the fish evolved to eventually become humans. As I have said, I didn't always believe that way because before I read and better understood the Bible I didn't really believe in God and I would basically accept whatever I was taught in school regarding evolution.

This is just plainly incorrect. The theory of evolution is more that well supported and credible. I cannot be your teacher about how it works, but I can tell you flatly what you are saying is wrong.

BTW, I read the Bible, I believe in the reality of God, and I fully accept the fact that evolution is how life came into the myriad forms we see here on earth. I find no contradiction between belief in God, and evolution, or with the book of Genesis either. It is all simply your reading of Genesis that cause you confusion. Why can't God have used evolution to create everything? Because the way you read Genesis doesn't fit what the science tells us? Can't you see that it's your marriage to your ideas that is what is wrong here, and not the science? Other believers don't have this same issue you do. Can you explain that?

The book of Genesis outlining the events of creation is not a scientific treatise, but an explanation or outline of events.

No it's really not. It's not an exact accounting for the order in which things came to be. You obviously can't have liquid water or a plant life on a planet that is frozen solid and no atmosphere because it lacks a sun to give it warm and allow life to exist. So clearly this cannot be how it really happened. So the exact same thing with the appearance of humans. It's not an exact accounting of anything. That leaves the door wide open to God to create things in the way that the fingerprints of how that was done was left discoverable to us today through science. And here you are denying what gift of knowledge we have been given to know this fantastic, miracle of evolution! To me, it's like slapping God in the face to deny it.

I see nothing to disprove that now. Going over the reason, it is because I have found that there are no real-time recordings of what actually happened per evolution.

I'll let our other fine posters educate you about how evolution works, since you clearly have some serious misunderstandings of it. It's not my focus to teach the science.

Only suppositions and suggestions, but nothing beyond the placement of fossil remains and figuring how it could have happened. The fact that few are willing to admit that concerning those taking a stand pro-evolution tells me also that there is prejudice. Nevertheless...that's the way it is.

Science denialism by Christians always bring to mind the story of Saul on the road to Damascus, when he was struck down off his high horse and heard a voice from heaven, "Saul, Saul.... it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks". I mean the evidence is overwhelming, and it takes a particular level of obstinance to continue to deny what is impossible to deny. It's much easier to just reconsider how you have thought about the book of Genesis, and how God actually creates, than it is for you to deny such overwhelming evidence. Who knows, you might find it actually helps your faith grow, like Paul did when he saw the Light.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem or difference of stories ike Paul Bunyan or whoever is the details. And longevity of the account passed on and preserved.

And that is the problem with the various Jesus stories too. Longevity does not really mean anything. If that was the case Hinduism would win.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who's rejecting biology, gravity, etc. ? Not me .Although I'll tell you something. God is greater than whatever theoretical laws may be in place.

Do you believe the Flood myth? Or for some strange reason do you find a reason not to believe that?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

However, I highly doubt that any Christian will insist that Zeus, Hera, Ares, Athena, or any of the other deities mentioned in Greek mythology are real gods and goddesses.

You’re probably right, many would.
But when we read Exodus 7, we find out the Bible actually states otherwise.
Who was behind the power of those magic-practicing priests of Pharaoh? Obviously some powerful entity (entities plural?). Real.

Seeing anything like that, would get anyone to think there were gods at work!

What always got me, is how could child sacrifice get to be, for lack of a better word, so popular in some Canaanite (etc) cultures: Phoenician, Ammonite, Carthaginian?

Child sacrifice - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

There must have been some kind of genuine drastic fear instilled in parents to get them to engage in such a horrid practice!

So there’s no doubt imo that invisible entities have pretended to be, or have actually been, gods to entire cultures!

In fact, I'm quite confident that Christians will reject these deities and discard them as figments of people's imaginations.

Well, I do reject them, but they were not, and are not, figments of people’s imaginations.
I doubt it was a figment in Pharaoh’s imagination…. He seemed to expect his priests to perform the same as Moses did!

The account tells us, right there, that there are powerful invisible forces working in opposition to God’s will.
Can you imagine Moses’ happiness, when his staff ate theirs?! He found out he was on the right side.

So while we as Jehovah’s Christian Witnesses do reject these real entities as gods worthy of any honor, we do recognize their power as rebellious angels, the ‘angels who sinned’ of 2 Peter 2:4. (Jude 1:6) But they are no match for Jehovah. Their day is coming to an end, “a short period of time”(Revelation 12:12), and their time of misleading influences will be over! Hopefully some day, you and I - and everyone alive - will be able to discuss how much we’re glad that these days of confusion are gone.

Best wishes, my cousin.

 

[Elihoenai]

John 6:53

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.


Further material for readers to consider on these Critical Questions:

Does Yeshua/Jesus Practice Shamanism? Is the Universal Roman Catholic Church's Real Presence of Messiah/Christ in the Eucharist Animism?

The life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in anthropological perspective

"...Jesus' healings, exorcisms, nature miracles (i.e., control of the spirits of nature), and resurrections (recoveries of the spirits of the dead) can all be understood as shamanic activities and thus suggest that Jesus was a shamanic holy man...."

The life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in anthropological perspective

www.scielo.org.za

Animism

Animism (from Latin: anima meaning 'breath, spirit, life')[1][2] is the belief that objects, places, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence.[3][4][5][6] Animism perceives all things—animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork, and in some cases words—as animated and alive. Animism is used in anthropology of religion as a term for the belief system of many Indigenous peoples,[7] in contrast to the relatively more recent development of organized religions.[8] Animism focuses on the metaphysical universe, with a specific focus on the concept of the immaterial soul.

Animism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist

The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist, not merely symbolically or metaphorically,[1] but in a true, real and substantial way.

Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anglican eucharistic theology

"...Anglican eucharistic theologies universally affirm the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, though Evangelical Anglicans believe that this is a pneumatic presence, while those of an Anglo-Catholic churchmanship believe this is a corporeal presence.[1] In the former interpretation, those who receive the form or sign of the body and blood (bread and wine) in faith, receive also the spiritual body and blood of Christ. Those who receive the form or sign without faith, or for those who are wicked, Christ is not present spiritually and they consume only the physical signs of this holy presence, which further adds to their wickedness – in accordance with Article XXIX.[2] In the latter interpretation, there exists the corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, although the precise manner of how that presence is made manifest is a mystery of faith.[3] To explain the manner of Christ's presence, some high-church Anglicans, however, teach the philosophical explanation of consubstantiation,[4] associated with the English Lollards and, later, erroneously with Martin Luther, though Luther and the Lutheran churches explicitly rejected the doctrine of consubstantiation and actually promulgated their dogma of the sacramental union.[5] A major leader in the Anglo-Catholic Oxford Movement, Edward Pusey, championed the view of consubstantiation...."

Eucharist in Anglicanism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’re probably right, many would.
But when we read Exodus 7, we find out the Bible actually states otherwise.
Who was behind the power of those magic-practicing priests of Pharaoh? Obviously some powerful entity (entities plural?). Real.

Seeing anything like that, would get anyone to think there were gods at work!

What always got me, is how could child sacrifice get to be, for lack of a better word, so popular in some Canaanite (etc) cultures: Phoenician, Ammonite, Carthaginian?

Child sacrifice - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

There must have been some kind of genuine drastic fear instilled in parents to get them to engage in such a horrid practice!

So there’s no doubt imo that invisible entities have pretended to be, or have actually been, gods to entire cultures!

Well, I do reject them, but they were not, and are not, figments of people’s imaginations.
I doubt it was a figment in Pharaoh’s imagination…. He seemed to expect his priests to perform the same as Moses did!

The account tells us, right there, that there are powerful invisible forces working in opposition to God’s will.
Can you imagine Moses’ happiness, when his staff ate theirs?! He found out he was on the right side.

So while we as Jehovah’s Christian Witnesses do reject these real entities as gods worthy of any honor, we do recognize their power as rebellious angels, the ‘angels who sinned’ of 2 Peter 2:4. (Jude 1:6) But they are no match for Jehovah. Their day is coming to an end, “a short period of time”(Revelation 12:12), and their time of misleading influences will be over! Hopefully some day, you and I - and everyone alive - will be able to discuss how much we’re glad that these days of confusion are gone.

Best wishes, my cousin.

You are conflating history and myth again. And it appears that you did not read your Wiki article that you linked. Do you want to go over what it says about human sacrifice in the Near East.

 

[Windwalker]

And it appears that you did not read your Wiki article that you linked. Do you want to go over what it says about human sacrifice in the Near East.

Fascinating. An interesting thought occurred to me reading about the sacrificing of the virgins to Jehovah mentioned in the article. Clearly there were those who were doing that, and there was also clearly a movement to stop doing that as well.

I wonder if the whole idea of celibacy for nuns is simply just a softer form of sacrificing virgins? In other words, rather than having to die to preserve one's virginity as a sacrifice to Jehovah, one can choose to simply not marry instead and stay a virgin. It's still sacrificing a virgin, just without killing them in order to preserve their virginity.

It's sort of a social compromise to appease those who believe in virgin sacrifices to God. Like many of these things, these are progressive's ways to move social practices forward, while respecting the conservatives amongst them. "We're still keeping the practice you like intact, but just ending killing them. Jehovah will still be appeased by the sacrifice of their virginity to him, through a vow instead of their blood." Everyone gets to be satisfied this way.

 

[YoursTrue]

When the basis for your rejection of the theory of evolution is your reading of the book of Genesis, that it appears to you to be a literal recording of events in strict chronological order, which contradicts the order that science explains based upon the evidence it is able to reliably look at, then you also are left with the story contradicting what science has to say about all kinds of things, not just how humans came to exist. You have plant life before the sun exists which is what plants need in order to exist at all. You have a planet existing before there is any gravitational force from the sun in order to give it its form. You have an atmosphere on the earth before the sun existed, which is impossible as the entire planet would be solid ice, no plants, no atmosphere, and no liquid water. And so forth.

Now you may argue that God could have had a liquid ocean in the complete absence of any heat to make the water liquid, but why???? What sense does that make to you that the author of Genesis intended to lay out an exact chronology of a planet that was a life producing earth before the sun existed? Do you image God created all of this in a flash frozen state, only to have it thawed out on the day he created the sun and moon? I mean seriously, this cannot possibly what the authors of Genesis meant to be understood by you, can it be?

Doesn't it seem much more reasonable to say, the problem is you are reading it wrong? Yes, it is easier to say that.


This is just plainly incorrect. The theory of evolution is more that well supported and credible. I cannot be your teacher about how it works, but I can tell you flatly what you are saying is wrong.

BTW, I read the Bible, I believe in the reality of God, and I fully accept the fact that evolution is how life came into the myriad forms we see here on earth. I find no contradiction between belief in God, and evolution, or with the book of Genesis either. It is all simply your reading of Genesis that cause you confusion. Why can't God have used evolution to create everything? Because the way you read Genesis doesn't fit what the science tells us? Can't you see that it's your marriage to your ideas that is what is wrong here, and not the science? Other believers don't have this same issue you do. Can you explain that?


No it's really not. It's not an exact accounting for the order in which things came to be. You obviously can't have liquid water or a plant life on a planet that is frozen solid and no atmosphere because it lacks a sun to give it warm and allow life to exist. So clearly this cannot be how it really happened. So the exact same thing with the appearance of humans. It's not an exact accounting of anything. That leaves the door wide open to God to create things in the way that the fingerprints of how that was done was left discoverable to us today through science. And here you are denying what gift of knowledge we have been given to know this fantastic, miracle of evolution! To me, it's like slapping God in the face to deny it.

I'll let our other fine posters educate you about how evolution works, since you clearly have some serious misunderstandings of it. It's not my focus to teach the science.

Science denialism by Christians always bring to mind the story of Saul on the road to Damascus, when he was struck down off his high horse and heard a voice from heaven, "Saul, Saul.... it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks". I mean the evidence is overwhelming, and it takes a particular level of obstinance to continue to deny what is impossible to deny. It's much easier to just reconsider how you have thought about the book of Genesis, and how God actually creates, than it is for you to deny such overwhelming evidence. Who knows, you might find it actually helps your faith grow, like Paul did when he saw the Light.

Just so you know for the future, if you want to reply to me, please keep your posts short, maybe one point at a time. Thank you. Offhand though, I don't reject the theory of evolution only because of what the Bible says. Period.

 

[YoursTrue]

When the basis for your rejection of the theory of evolution is your reading of the book of Genesis, that it appears to you to be a literal recording of events in strict chronological order, which contradicts the order that science explains based upon the evidence it is able to reliably look at, then you also are left with the story contradicting what science has to say about all kinds of things, not just how humans came to exist. You have plant life before the sun exists which is what plants need in order to exist at all. You have a planet existing before there is any gravitational force from the sun in order to give it its form. You have an atmosphere on the earth before the sun existed, which is impossible as the entire planet would be solid ice, no plants, no atmosphere, and no liquid water. And so forth.

Now you may argue that God could have had a liquid ocean in the complete absence of any heat to make the water liquid, but why???? What sense does that make to you that the author of Genesis intended to lay out an exact chronology of a planet that was a life producing earth before the sun existed? Do you image God created all of this in a flash frozen state, only to have it thawed out on the day he created the sun and moon? I mean seriously, this cannot possibly what the authors of Genesis meant to be understood by you, can it be?

Doesn't it seem much more reasonable to say, the problem is you are reading it wrong? Yes, it is easier to say that.


This is just plainly incorrect. The theory of evolution is more that well supported and credible. I cannot be your teacher about how it works, but I can tell you flatly what you are saying is wrong.

BTW, I read the Bible, I believe in the reality of God, and I fully accept the fact that evolution is how life came into the myriad forms we see here on earth. I find no contradiction between belief in God, and evolution, or with the book of Genesis either. It is all simply your reading of Genesis that cause you confusion. Why can't God have used evolution to create everything? Because the way you read Genesis doesn't fit what the science tells us? Can't you see that it's your marriage to your ideas that is what is wrong here, and not the science? Other believers don't have this same issue you do. Can you explain that?


No it's really not. It's not an exact accounting for the order in which things came to be. You obviously can't have liquid water or a plant life on a planet that is frozen solid and no atmosphere because it lacks a sun to give it warm and allow life to exist. So clearly this cannot be how it really happened. So the exact same thing with the appearance of humans. It's not an exact accounting of anything. That leaves the door wide open to God to create things in the way that the fingerprints of how that was done was left discoverable to us today through science. And here you are denying what gift of knowledge we have been given to know this fantastic, miracle of evolution! To me, it's like slapping God in the face to deny it.

I'll let our other fine posters educate you about how evolution works, since you clearly have some serious misunderstandings of it. It's not my focus to teach the science.

Science denialism by Christians always bring to mind the story of Saul on the road to Damascus, when he was struck down off his high horse and heard a voice from heaven, "Saul, Saul.... it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks". I mean the evidence is overwhelming, and it takes a particular level of obstinance to continue to deny what is impossible to deny. It's much easier to just reconsider how you have thought about the book of Genesis, and how God actually creates, than it is for you to deny such overwhelming evidence. Who knows, you might find it actually helps your faith grow, like Paul did when he saw the Light.

Science changes its position anyway from time to time.

 

[exchemist]

Who's rejecting biology, gravity, etc. ? Not me .Although I'll tell you something. God is greater than whatever theoretical laws may be in place.

You delude yourself. You are rejecting biology and also earth science, physics and astronomy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science changes its position anyway from time to time.

Yes, it keeps getting more and more accurate..

 

[exchemist]

Science changes its position anyway from time to time.

We learn more and incorporate the new knowledge. That is precisely what gives sciences its power. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

 

[YoursTrue]

You delude yourself. You are rejecting biology and also earth science, physics and astronomy.

Why? By realizing that "science" isn't always right?

 

[YoursTrue]

We learn more and incorporate the new knowledge. That is precisely what gives sciences its power. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Furthermore are you saying that in order to be right one must agree with all the theories of science?