Jorge Mario Bergoglio says evolution and big Bang are real

[columbus]

That is not what the Bible says, IMO.

This is why I am confident that Scripture has nothing to do with God. What it "says" is usually a matter of opinion. Human opinion, to be precise. Anybody who reads Genesis can see that the original meaning, to the original audience, is six days. Some people now hold different opinions. But that's mainly because they accept some of the evidence that has since been ascertained.
Tom

 

[Ouroboros]

Ponder this:
IF "God" made a man and a woman and stopped with that pair.
Being a man and woman they had sex and gave birth to children
as the Bible says.
With that small gene pool why do we have so many different humans?
Oriental, white, black, red, yellow, skin tones etc.?
If we sprang from the original pair then all of us here are distant
cousins.

True. There are alleles that have hundreds of variations in the human code. They could only have come about through mutations. The majority of them neutral, otherwise those mutations would have killed those people of. I read somewhere that it's very likely that each one of us have at least one unique mutation in our DNA, somewhere, but most likely in some dormant part of the DNA. We all get a cancer mutation some 20 times in our life, but most of the time, the antibodies take care of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is not what the Bible says, IMO.

The Bible says "raqia":

The word "firmament" is used to translate raqia, or raqiya‘ ( רקיע), a word used in Biblical Hebrew. It is derived from the root raqa‘ ( רקע), meaning "to beat or spread out", e.g., the process of making a dish by hammering thin a lump of metal.[5][6]

Firmament - Wikipedia

 

[rusra02]

This is why I am confident that Scripture has nothing to do with God. What it "says" is usually a matter of opinion. Human opinion, to be precise. Anybody who reads Genesis can see that the original meaning, to the original audience, is six days. Some people now hold different opinions. But that's mainly because they accept some of the evidence that has since been ascertained.
Tom

Consider what Genesis 1:3-5 actually says; "And God said: “Let there be light.” Then there was light. After that God saw that the light was good, and God began to divide the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day."
Here, God called the daylight hours day. Then, he called evening until morning, a first day. To me, it is obvious God was not speaking of a literal 24-hour period. Later, God called the entire creative period a single day. (Genesis 2:4) I think a reasonable person would conclude the word "day" in the Bible can mean something other than a literal 24 hours.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Consider what Genesis 1:3-5 actually says; "And God said: “Let there be light.” Then there was light. After that God saw that the light was good, and God began to divide the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day."
Here, God called the daylight hours day. Then, he called evening until morning, a first day. To me, it is obvious God was not speaking of a literal 24-hour period. Later, God called the entire creative period a single day. (Genesis 2:4) I think a reasonable person would conclude the word "day" in the Bible can mean something other than a literal 24 hours.

This is an after-the-fact interpretation. You know that the light of the daytime sky comes from the Sun; the ancient people who wrote that story didn't. To them, there was no contradiction in "light" being created before the Sun.

 

[metis]

I would say that probably most objective theologians today realize that the creation accounts were probably inspired by a Babylonian epic and reworked to reflect Jewish values. This is commonplace worldwide, and people should not consider that threatening to their faith since the real "moral of the story" are the values and morals that the creation narratives teach because it is these teachings that really matter as guidelines for us today.

 

[sayak83]

So now what are Christians to do with Matthew 19:3-5?

"And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?' He answered, 'Have you not read that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?""

?

I am unaware that theory of evolution says that there was ever a time when humans were neither male nor female. I am quite confident that sex emerged in the animal world more than 600 million years before humans had evolved.

 

[metis]

I am unaware that theory of evolution says that there was ever a time when humans were neither male nor female. I am quite confident that sex emerged in the animal world more than 600 million years before humans had evolved.

Yes, what the fossil evidence indicates is that you are more likely to be correct. Even with the earliest human fossils, there are differences between the sexes that are distinguishable in adults.

 

[The Adept]

His god might not have a magic wand, which is after all a symbol of office. but Vol-Daltor has.
Even so, The Big Bang is a myth. As there was no time of nothing, Hoyle was right about the eternal material.

 

[The Adept]

He made them from the beginning i.e. He is the originator of Creation.
He made them male and female i.e. via the processes he set in play and upholds they have been made male and female.

So another god made hermaphrodites. Very telling admission by the evil one.

 

[Kirran]

So another god made hermaphrodites. Very telling admission by the evil one.

I should have worded it 'they have been made such as to include male and female'. Obviously there are intersex people etc also.