Creationism or Evolutionism.

[Wakko]

Yes.

Dang, then I'm not a Christian.

[Mr. Yorp]

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me[Jesus Christ]; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

[Eleventh Doctor]

So we have to take every word of the Bible literally? I believe His writings but believing does not equal taking everything exactly literally.

[Mr. Yorp]

Ken Ham was asked the same question.

I take it naturally.

Psalms of course is poetry.
Some of the things in Revelation appear to be symbolism, such as the horses. Not that I would doubt there would actually be horses.

[Eleventh Doctor]

If you think there will be actual horses then it won't be symbolism.

I have no problem with you taking it literally, I think that's a legitimate viewpoint. But I do take issue with you claiming you must believe a literal six days to be a Christian. There are some of us on the board here and the majority of Christians around the world who don't, so it seems rude to say we're not Christians. I mean we agree on what I think are the important point, that God created everything out of nothing.

[Mr. Yorp]

Where did the seven day week come from?

[Eleventh Doctor]

The first example of a seven day time period we see is in the Babylonian religious calendar, why?

[truAIOfan]

@Eleventh Doctor-I would lke to know: If we evolved over "millions" of years ago, why are we still not evolving?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Who says we aren't?

[Mr. Yorp]

Evolving in the regular context means improving, but people are becoming more wicked which is not evolution.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Evolving means adapting to better survive and propagate, it doesn't always mean improving. Evolution also doesn't have moral dimensions.

[Mr. Yorp]

If men were to evolve to be able to give birth, would homosexuality be okey?

[Eleventh Doctor]

I have no idea how that would happen, lets cross that bridge when we come to it

[Mr. Yorp]

I have no idea either, how that would happen!

[Wodfamchocsod]

NateVONGreat, are you basically saying that the Bible is your science workbook, and the only source you'll ever consult for science? If so, that's an extremely silly and close minded thing to do. The Bible is God's Word, the living, breathing voice of God, and the ultimate text on how to live our lives, but I think we all can agree it is not a science book. It lines up with science, and we can compare it to science, but God did not intend it to be the "end of the story" scientifically. You say you don't like "scientific evidence of any sort". I'm wondering why you hold this rather extreme belief. Is it because you're afraid that science could one day potentially contradict the Bible and all your faith would be in vain? Is it because the fact that some (gasp!) non-Christian scientists have contributed great things to the realm of science?

I find it odd that you call Eleventh Doctor, who is actually posing legitimate questions, a smart alek, when it's you who's being more of a smart alek by completely disrespecting the men who have worked their whole lives to understand God's creation and help the rest of humanity through their discoveries. Perhaps you should consider the old Earth theory, now that we've already established that Eleventh Doctor has considered he new one. The truth is, God uses these scientists, Christian and non-Christian, to create progress, so that man may understand God better. God is not in opposition with science, he is science, all of science, and the second we understand that is the second we get to know him better.

Science, through God, created the medicine that keeps you healthy, the Internet you're using to make he's posts, and even the planes you fly as a pilot (Just as a side note, I think it's fantastic that you're serving our country as a pilot. I only wish I had the courage or talent to do something like that.). So what if there are currently scientist "scoffers ignorant of creation and the flood" out there questioning the existence of God? They should be questioning the existence of God. We shouldn't just blindly accept the Bible as truth because our parents did. We should examine the only thing we can examine to prove the existence of God: the outside world around us, and thus, science. And if science completely disproves the existence of a God and the truth of he Bible, we should reject the Bible, all of it, just as we would reject Evolution or Islam. Fortunately, science doesn't disprove the existence of God or the truth of the Bible. In fact, many would argue (including myself and, hopefully, yourself) that it proves it. Do you honestly think that God wanted scientific progress to stop after Jesus? Please clarify if this is what you mean, because I could've been reading your post all wrong.

Wodfamchocsod, I understand your point, but I disagree with it. Theistic evolution would not contradict the first verse of Genesis at all. It's just a different way of approaching it. The purpose in life would be exactly the same as a normal Christian, that is, to serve God in everything you do, ultimately spend eternity with him, and make an effort to convince others to do the same. Evolution only contradicts the Bible if you're taking "seven days" literally, as in our definition of "seven days". But if you're going to do that, you might as well say that Jesus wants us all to literally turn into sheep, or that he somehow wants adults to reverse the aging process and literally become children. I suppose what it all boils down to is whether you're taking the Bible literally, in every single sense of the word "literally". You are, and Eleventh Doctor isn't, necessarily.

In Genesis 27 it says then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrilsThe breath of life and the man became a living being.
The Bible plainly says God created man, and not through a cycle of death BEFORE the fall. How would a theistic evolutionist work that around their faith?
Genesis gives no indication that the days described our long ages of millions of years or that the days are 24 hours long separated by long ages of millions of years. In fact the Bible actually says and there was evening and there was morning one day

[Eleventh Doctor]

The book of Genesis has two instances of God creating man so if we're taking everything as exactly literal what's up with that?

You also ignored most of Arnolds questions.

[Wodfamchocsod]

The book of Genesis has two instances of God creating man so if we're taking everything as exactly literal what's up with that?

You also ignored most of Arnolds questions.

Genesis has one account, but tells it within two Chapters.
Before we go into th whole literal thing,Genesis is history, not poetry,parable, prophetic vision, or mythology. This is seen in the Hebrew verbs used in Genesis 1,the fact that Genesis 1–11 has the same characteristics of historical narrative as in Genesis 12–50, most of Exodus, much of Numbers, Joshua, 1 and 2 Kings, etc. (which are discernibly distinct from the characteristics of Hebrew poetry, parable, or prophetic vision), and the way the other biblical authors and Jesus treat Genesis 1–11 (as literal history).
Also, the word day in Hebrew is yom; and as many scholars have pointed out Jan can mean a 24 hour day or an unspecified period of time. However when Jan is modified by certain words the length of time can be determined. For example one evening and morning are used to modify Jan and scripture it always describes a literal day.

[Eleventh Doctor]

You say it's one account yet we see the same actions repeated. Genesis 1:26-27 "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." So God created male and female, done they've been created that part of the account is finished. But then in Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." So wait, why is this repeating if its just one account?

I just don't agree that it was a history, I can see where you're coming from but it just shares so many characteristics with other creation accounts of the same time period.

You have scholars that say in this case the word means a specific day, I've read that its unclear. I think your arguments about the modification are strong but not enough to convince me, it seems like there's still a lot of room for interpretation and that's all I'm saying; there's room for more than just a literal six days view.

Yet there was not agreement on the literal nature of the six days amongst the Jews. We take a look at a quote from Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher at the time of Christ.

And he says that the world was made in six days, not because the Creator stood in need of a length of time (for it is natural that God should do everything at once, not merely by uttering a command, but by even thinking of it); but because the things created required arrangement; and number is akin to arrangement; and, of all numbers, six is, by the laws of nature, the most productive

[Wodfamchocsod]

You say it's one account yet we see the same actions repeated. Genesis 1:26-27 "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." So God created male and female, done they've been created that part of the account is finished. But then in Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." So wait, why is this repeating if its just one account?

I just don't agree that it was a history, I can see where you're coming from but it just shares so many characteristics with other creation accounts of the same time period.

You have scholars that say in this case the word means a specific day, I've read that its unclear. I think your arguments about the modification are strong but not enough to convince me, it seems like there's still a lot of room for interpretation and that's all I'm saying; there's room for more than just a literal six days view.

Yet there was not agreement on the literal nature of the six days amongst the Jews. We take a look at a quote from Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher at the time of Christ.

And he says that the world was made in six days, not because the Creator stood in need of a length of time (for it is natural that God should do everything at once, not merely by uttering a command, but by even thinking of it); but because the things created required arrangement; and number is akin to arrangement; and, of all numbers, six is, by the laws of nature, the most productive

Why is it repeated? I don't know, and I'm not going to pretend to since I'm not God. But I'll tell you this: God created and designed us in His own image and formed us from dust, so we mus be really important to God if He wanted to put it in Genesis twice. We are designed perfectly by Him, as it clearly states in Genesis 2:7, and didn't not go through a process of death to be here.
If you don't take Genesis literally why do you think it's in Gods Word to mankind? In Exodus 20:11,
Moses says "for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day." Well, if someone refuses to take this literally they might as well not believe the 10 commandments happened. One point I want to make involving a literal 6 day interpretation is this: Gods Word is written to us people, and I don't think God is trying to confuse us when He says there's evening and morning, one day. The Bible is for all of us, and Gods not trying to pull any tricks so that we have to read really deeply into it. That's why I believe the Bible should definitely be taken literally.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Every part of the Bible should be taken literally? Even Revelation? A confusing book if ever there was one, are you saying that book is straightforward?

You're not God and you can't pretend to know what God means by repeating something twice but you do know for sure that God meant for the Bible to have a plain meaning that wouldn't require us to read deeply, seems like you're contradicting yourself. Do you not know what God's intentions are in Genesis or do you know how He intended the book to be read?

I think the Bible is one of the greatest pieces of literature in history period and as such requires an extremely deep reading, there are layers upon layers of meaning and symbolism in the Bible. It defies simple literal understanding.

As for the Exodus verse, so Moses never used figurative language?