quote:

Originally posted by FHHM213:

quote:

Originally posted by Pyker:
No. It's a story made up to explain something which could not, at the time, be explained.

I guess that implies that we can now explain those things?

We may now understand the concepts of genetic code within a cell but we don’t seem able to explain the true origin of such. Any theory seems dependent on some basic version / component for which some evolutionary change was then exerted. But what was the origin of that early basic version / component and what guided the original evolutionary instinct?

But, as already noted, the larger question is focused on the broken nature of the world & man, and how that broken nature might be reversed.

I’ve yet to hear any true answers from mere man as to that greater question.

I imply nothing. It's just one possible explanation for a myth, a legend, or a simple fairy tale. I simply don't believe it.

You (obviously) may interpret it as you wish, in order to fit with your own beliefs.

Since the OP wants to know why we believe what we believe. I think you should know about myself. I do believe in a loving God, maker of us and all and all we can conceive of. Adam and Eve, Noah, why get hung up on the minutiae of the greatest story ever told? If you open your eyes and ears to what is all around and only see science...You have my sympathy. God has intervened In my life way to many times to be a accident. My life has been saved from immigrate death. And my outlook has been change in a twinkling of the eye so to speak. Changes brought about thru nothing I did other than pray. ‘‘Tis my story”. I know to many and myself too we want to know it all and basically we have not the apparatus to fully see what IS. As we see thru a glass darkly now, all will be reveled in the by and by to paraphrase Paul. It is a hard thing for intelligent intellectual people to have a childlike faith in a loving Father but there is the crux is it not. For all logic says the other!

Genisis is purported to have been written by Moses some 1400 years after the fact. I think Moses wrote it to fit the intellect of his audience at the time, maybe his intellect also. Does that make it allegorical? Maybe! I think it was meant to appeal more to their anagogical sense with the symbolism of that time.

I have never once considered that the stories in the bible should be taken literally.

I understand that Religions are beliefs, Science is repeatable proven facts.

I my opinion, Religion is just the marketing of personal Spirituality.

quote:

Originally posted by FHHM213:

Differences resulting from the translation and / or copying is often overplayed by modern critics. Again, the book that I referenced is a worthwhile read if someone would truly like to exert more due diligence. Ultimately, those inconsistencies are immaterial.

Well that addresses part of my point anyway.

"Immaterial" depends a lot on your opinion of what is necessary.

I don't think you can say science is repeatable proven facts.
I'd say it's more of a stretch to believe that nothing created everything that came into existance simply by random chance, than to say that a creator created it.

I read A&E in your poll as the network so I didn’t answer.

I have read the Bible as a skeptic and an unbeliever. I used to enjoy arguing with Christians and besting them in discussions.

I have arrived at a point where I do believe the Bible is true and has the only unique story and offer of salvation to fallen people - simply believing on the vicarious death of Jesus and attested to by his resurrection.

I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve who were in the garden of Eden. It wasn’t a snake, however, but Satan in the form of a serpent which apparently had legs back then.

Theoretically, the tree of life was not needed to be in the garden. Death only happened through the sin of Adam.

I'm a pastor! I've already posted in this topic but I want to say thank you to all who have responded for the respect you have shown for others beliefs. This is literally the first non biblical forum that I have found this on. Thank you all.

quote:

Originally posted by gunnutty:
Thank you all.

And especially thank those who are responsible for how this forum is run.

These are important issues and because of our emotional investment in our respective positions, it's hard to keep emotions out of it. But almost all of us manage, and I posted this question and somewhat related questions in the past here because I can expect the discussion to remain respectful and civil.

(And sorry about the “A&E” confusion. It didn’t occur to me that it wouldn’t be understood as shorthand for Adam and Eve.)

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
(And sorry about the “A&E” confusion. It didn’t occur to me that it wouldn’t be understood as shorthand for Adam and Eve.)

I read it as Accident & Emergency, the Brit equivalent of ER.

quote:

Originally posted by irreverent:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Salty Dawg:
I think that much of the Old Testament is stories being passed down from folks trying to explain stuff they couldn't (and we still can't) comprehend. I don't think it makes any sense to treat stories like Adam and Even, 200-year old (or whatever it was) Abraham, Noah and the Ark, etc. as historical accounts.

That is the way I see it. Maybe there was someone who is our Abraham or Moses - but I don't see an actual parting of the Red Sea as a real thing, just as an example of something that isn't literally true.

The original creation story sounds like so many other creation myths in so many other cultures - the stories of primitive peoples trying to explain what they can't possibly understand. Not that myths aren't important - they are super-important. They just don't have to be literally true.

And yet, parts of it may be. I remember taking a class in college to fulfill a lib Ed requirement, and it had to do with comparing texts like the Bible, Greek mythology, and some other text, and realizing that there were correlations between them at certain points in time. Like the great flood, for instance. They all mentioned some aspect of this, and the prof’s point was that these writings were done in different parts of the world, at a point in time where there wouldn’t be communication to compare notes..and the “stories” all agreed that it happened. I found that very interesting.

I don't mean that some culture's creation stories have similarities in plot points to those of other cultures. I mean similar in the sense of being myths used to explain the before times and how we got to now.

I believe the concept of an initial man and woman and their relationship with their Creator and the influence of evil. I can’t declare that the biblical account is the complete truth since so many hands have penned and translated the account. That’s too much opportunity to lose facts, perspective and proportion. It could be 100% literal truth or it could be more allegorical. Doesn’t affect my faith.

I used to believe it literally, but after reading and watching scientific material, I think the creation story is an allegory of actual evolution into homo sapien, IF homo sapien IS the actual humans Genesis talks about. Think of all the "proto" human species, and that some peoples groups have up to 6% Neanderthal in their blood. So do people who believe the literal set of events in Genesis believe that ONLY Homo Sapiens are the "real" humans that God created ? Then what about Neanderthals ? Were those humans ? When they integrated with Homo Sapiens, do those same people believe that Homo Sapiens were interbreeding with apes ? Personally I think there were several proto human and early human grups that "evolved" over time, and if not evolution per se, perhaps God created humans using that method - by "evolving" from proto to early to current human peoples. So if the people who believe the "literal" interpretation of the creation of man, then please ask them to choose exactly WHICH of those pre-sapien groups of people are the REAL first humans God created ? If you can be so sure about THAT, then HOW have you ever been so wrong about many things in your personal life ? How can you be SO sure about something that's WAY above your relative pea brain in the grand scheme of things in light of these big questions, when you can't get thru a whole week without making any kind of mistake that is otherwise completely in your own control ? Personally, I believe God created the universe, but I don't think any of us will ever know the real story, EVEN for those of us to "make it" to heaven. IF you think you will know EVERYTHING after you get there, then why do you need a God in the first place ? If God tells you everything there is to know after you get there, then you would know as God knows. I believe that anyone who believes God will tell him anything and everything he wants to know at some point in the future, is a pretty high bar of ignorance at the least or hubris at the worst. In spite of all this, I still can't way if I'm really right, because this is where my thinking is NOW, and what right do I have to think that my ideas TODAY are more or less correct that my personal ideas in the future, let alone anyone elses ?

quote:

Originally posted by x0225095:

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
I believe it to be an allegory.

This is correct.

Writers of that day wrote allegorical. The important thing to know is that if there is no “Adam”, then there is no original sin then there is no reason for baptism then there certainly is no reason for Christ.

Northing wrong with that. Mankind would be free.

Yes, I believe.
Adam was the first man.
If there is no first man, then we are all still animals ( no soul/conscience). Evolutionists must also recognize a first man. It's either that or we are still monkeys, and we are not.

Why is the great flood not true?
Was not the Mediterranean once dry land?

Time is a tricky thing (as is history passed down time and time again, translated time and time again), it is not as linear as it seems to be, science has provided theory that supports this.
Science and religion are two sides of the same coin.
I will not discount one because of the other. They are not truly at odds as I see it. They can support each other if you are open to the possibility.

I will leave this for thought: often when I hear people speak about religion, I feel like I do when I hear Democrat’s speak about guns. So many people speak authoritatively about religion, but they don’t really have any formal understanding of the topic.

You’ll hear things like, “I went to a catholic school” or “I grew up in X church.” So what’s your point? That doesn’t mean you have a deep and thorough understanding simply because you have exposure. I went to catholic schools my whole life, my understanding as an adult who’s studied it regularly is vastly different.

If you attend regular Bible study..not merely church...but a formal Bible study for a couple of years, your world will be rocked for most of you. Things aren’t so simple as you make them sound. You’re making surface arguments that are actually easily refutable by experts on the subject.

The Bible speaks of the arrogance of man, and it is on full display often when the topic of religion comes up. There are very, very well researched and thought out reasons the Church teaches what they do. It’s not blind adherence to a text.

The more I study the Bible, the more I realize how silly I sounded when I said things like I read in this thread. That’s not to say if you study the Bible in depth you’ll think Adam and Eve is a literal story. However, you will have a much tougher time drawing the conclusion that it isn’t.

I’m still undecided about how I feel in regards to the question the OP posted. I believe in evolution. I also believe we we created by God. I believe we will continue to evolve. They are not mutually exclusive.

Some of y’all are speaking very confidently about “the arm thing that goes up” though.

The simple human brain always wants to be "somewhere". I'm located in this town, where is that? In this state. Where is that? In this country, on this continent, on this planet, in this solar system... you can just keep going with "But where is that?"

Either creationism or science leaves you flat, because you will still ask.. "But where was that?" First there was nothing (where was God?) and God created heaven and earth. (where?) Or there's the big bang... which took place... where? You can't help it.

Meaning you will never be able to understand, nor are you supposed to.

The Atheist Test:
=================
The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can.

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.


The banana-the atheist's nightmare.

Note that the banana:

Is shaped for human hand
Has non-slip surface
Has outward indicators of inward content:
Green-too early,
Yellow-just right,
Black-too late.
Has a tab for removal of wrapper
Is perforated on wrapper
Bio-degradable wrapper
Is shaped for human mouth
Has a point at top for ease of entry
Is pleasing to taste buds
Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

To say that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to say that no one designed the Coca Cola can.

TEST ONE
The person who thinks the Coca Cola can had no designer is:
___ A. Intelligent
___ B. A fool
___ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?


Charles Darwin said,

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (The Origin of Species, Chapter 6).

If man cannot begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance? In fact, man cannot make anything from nothing. We don't know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop . . . but we cannot create even one grain of sand from nothing. Yet, the eye is only a small part of the most sophisticated part of creation-the human body.


George Gallup, the famous statistician, said,

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."


Albert Einstein said,

"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe--a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."


TEST TWO
A. Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder?

___ YES ___ NO

B. Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter?

___ YES ___ NO

C. Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?

___ YES ___ NO
If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________


Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and they by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? The logical conclusion is that someone with an intelligent mind put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall by accident into a straight line are mind-boggling, let alone ten rows of five.


TEST THREE
A. From the atom to the universe, is there order?

___ YES ___ NO

B. Did it happen by accident?

___ YES ___ NO

C. Or, must there have been an intelligent mind?

___ YES ___ NO

D. What are the chances of 50 oranges falling by chance
into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________
If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________


The declaration "There is no God" is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge.

Here is another absolute statement: "There is no gold in China."

TEST FOUR
What do I need to have for that statement to be true?
A. No knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO

B. Partial knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO

C. Absolute knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO

"C" is the correct answer. For the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China, or the statement is incorrect. To say "There is no God," and to be correct in the statement, I must be omniscient.

I must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock...nothing is hidden from my eyes...I know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napoleon's great-grandmother. To make the absolute statement "There is no God." I must have absolute knowledge that there isn't one.

Let's say that this circle represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, and let's assume that you have an incredible 1% of all that knowledge. Is it possible, that in the knowledge you haven't yet come across, there is ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?

If you are reasonable, you will have to say, "Having the limited knowledge that I have at present, I believe that there is no God." In other words, you don't know if God exists, so you are not an "atheist," you are what is commonly known as an "agnostic." You are like a man who looks at a building, and doesn't know if there was a builder.

TEST FIVE
The man who sees a building and doesn't know if there was a builder is:
___ A. Intelligent
___ B. A fool
___ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

Perhaps you have questions that hold you back from faith. First, almost every question you have about suffering humanity etc., can be adequately answered.

Second, we have faith in plenty of things we don't understand. Did you understand the mechanics of television before you turned it on? Probably not. You took a step of faith, turned it on, and after it worked, understanding how it worked wasn't that important. We accept that there are unseen television waves right in front of our eyes. We can't see them because they are invisible. For them to manifest, we need a receiver, then we can enjoy the experience of television.

God is not flesh and blood. He is an eternal Spirit-immortal and invisible. Like the television waves, He cannot be experienced until the "receiver" is switched on. Here is something you will find hard to believe: Jesus said, "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him" (John 14:21).

Either that is true or it isn't. Jesus Christ says that He will manifest Himself to anyone who obeys Him. Approach the subject the same way you approached your first television set. Just take a small step of faith. If it works, enjoy it, if it doesn't, forget it.

Or have you an ulterior motive? Could it be that the "atheist" can't find God, for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman? Could it be that your love for sin is clouding your good judgment? If the Bible is true, and Jesus Christ has "abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel," then you owe it to yourself just to check it out. God will never let you down.

Dont wait tooooooooo long my lost friend

Look up on Youtube Dr. Peterson's lectures on this subject if you're interested. I found them to be worth the time.