Jun 27
Creation Vs. Evolution
GENESIS 1
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
There has been great controversy over the story of Creation. It causes problems in school because to teach it is considered the teaching of religion. Teaching the theory of Evolution, for which scientific proof exists, causes problems because it seems to go against the theory of Creation as described in the Bible.
Last year, textbooks in Texas schools which contained lessons about Evolution were required to be adorned with stickers that reminded students that Evolution was a “theory,” not necessarily fact. This was done by zealous Christians who fear that anyone who believes in Evolution cannot believe in God.
During a recent conversation with a family member, I was surprised to learn that this relative believed that God did create the world in six days as the Bible says. I asked her thoughts about evolution, wondering how she could dismiss archeological discoveries that tend to prove that we evolved over a period of time into our present state. She had no answer. In other words, she believed in the Bible, she did believe in the facts of science, but there was a tremendous gray areain which the two theories do not mesh and for her, she could not reconcilethis gap.
Is it not possible that the scientific proof those who support the theory of Evolution put forth is true? Yes. Does this dispute the Biblical story that God created all that exists? Not really.
If you read the story of Creation as depicted in Genesis, you will learn that on the first day, God created light, implying that before light there was only darkness. On the fourth day, God created the sun, moon and stars to govern the day and the night and to mark the seasons, days and years. This brings up an interesting question: if there was no such system to mark a “day” until the “third day,” how long did the “first day” and “second day” really last?
Remember: God didn’t write the Bible. Religious men wrote the Bible while they were inspired by God. To different degrees, those who did so believed that God was telling them exactly what to write. But would God have spent a great deal of energy to explain to unenlightened minds His own timetable?
Consider it this way: Do you measure each second of your life? Each minute? Even each hour? Most of us don’t make note of days as they pass. We mark our birthdays on a yearly basis, and for the most part, we live our life day to day as it comes. Why? Because we all assume that we have a certain lifespan ahead of us: an average of anywhere from seventy to eighty years. Minutes don’t matter when you have decades ahead, right?
Then consider the mayfly. This insect’s lifespan lasts less than a full day. A mayfly, fortunately, hasn’t the perception to realize the severity of its own mortality. But if it did, how do you suppose it might make use of its time? If you knew that you would die at midnight tonight, how many times would you look at the clock?
God doesn’t have to worry about the clock: He is infinite, the beginning and the end. Time itself has no real meaning to the Almighty because he transcends it. For God, measuring the length of a single day is useless since there is never an end to the days that follow. What difference would it make to God to create the heavens and the earth in six days or six weeks? Six months or six years? If God is ongoing, then His creation will unfold in His own time, whatever He considers appropriate. He might allow things to happen over eons or with the snap of a finger, create an entire universe in a flash.
If He intended his creations to mimic Him, it wouldn’t matter whether we appeared in a single flash of light or arrived in our present state over time; the point is that we became — one way or another — what He intended.
If the Bible had been written today and not when it actually had been written, can you imagine that it would be identical to the original version? Surely the basic messages, the themes of God’s love, the lessons God wanted us to learn would be there. But would the story be told in the same way? Would it address modern practices, or would a Bible written in 2005 still have customs such as the washing of visitors’ feet?
If one would expect that the time the Bible was written might impact how the stories within unfold, one must be able to accept the possibility that since there was very little scientific knowledge at the time of its writing, there is very little science in the Bible. The Bible was written long before men came to the “scientific” conclusion that the earth was flat! If they had known about evolution theories at that time, would the Bible have mentioned this? Might it not have suggested that God created man in His own image, and that over many, many years, his Creation grew from the most miniscule spark of life into the creatures He intended us to become in a slow, perfecting process?
If Christians believe that God created everything that exists, he must also have created the scientific evidence that suggests evolution, as well as the intelligence within us that interprets it.
Many Christians rule out the possibility of evolution out of the irrational fear that evolution must disprove the Bible. But such fears miss the real point: it’s not important whether Creation occurred in six days or over the course of eons as science suggests; the important lesson is that God is the Creator.
Even if the theory of evolution is correct, and even if the universe began with the Big Bang, there had to be something to create the initial matter that exploded and ultimately became the universe as we know it. There had to be a starting point. I don’t say this as a “cop out” over which theory is the correct one. My point is that both can be accurate; there are elements of truth in both.
I believe that the Bible is a textbook for humanity. There are lessons to be learned and principles we should carry into our day-to-day lives. But I do not interpret everything in the Bible literally. When science provides convincing evidence about our history, I am willing to accept that evidence if I believe it to be accurate. And I am willing to compare the theories to the stories put forth in the Bible.
In this case, I think it is entirely possible for the story of the Creation to co-exist peacefully with the scientific theory of evolution.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
(4.50 out of 5)
June 27th, 2005 at 9:38 am
I, too, have no problem reconciling Evolution with the Bible. The way I see it, wouldn’t a God who has created such unbelievably amazing and wonderful things as the universe, and MAN, have developed an intricate and orderly fashion in which his creations come about ? If we look at the awesome complexity of our bodies and our world, we can see that sense of continuity in every little thing that surrounds us. I’m with you, Patrick. No conflict here …. Tina
http://journals.aol.com/onemoretina/Ridealongwithme
Comment from onemoretina - 2/14/05 2:45 AM
June 27th, 2005 at 9:38 am
I don’t have a problem with the two coexisting either. I see the Bible as being true, but not literally accurate. And I think that if you take away the poetry and metaphor, as those who insist on seeing it as a biology textbook do, then you miss most of it.
http://journals.aol.com/oceanmrc/ALaywomansLectionary/
http://journals.aol.com/oceanmrc/MidlifeMatters/
Comment from oceanmrc - 2/14/05 8:02 AM
June 27th, 2005 at 9:39 am
The notion that every word of the Bible is directly inspired by God, and is meant to be taken literally and with an unchanging meaning, runs into at least three problems for modern Christians:
1. There are obvious contradictions in the Bible
2. Some passages seem to be timeless, but many others seem limited to a distant past
3. The very concept and “personality” of God changes dramatically as one reads the books of the Bible
Some of what is prescribed in the Old Testament is followed by Jews but ignored by Christians, and I suppose that in part corrects for some of these issues, but it really does not do the job completely.
There is some beautiful and inspiring spiritual writing in the Bible, and if I believed in God, I might be inclined to accept that He in fact inspired people to write, even if I find it hard to believe He would have determined exactly what they wrote. It seems to me that He would have done a better job.
If God intended for us to be guided and inspired for thousands of years by the Bible, then the contradictions and other flaws may in fact reflect a divine intelligence of design, and a faith in His own creation. He may have left it to us to sort through the ambiguity and the contradictions, and to seek answers to new problems in a process of creatively reflecting on values and stories from long ago.
To do that successfully, we must not be too literal, or too fearful of the freedom that implies. It seems to me that faith should provide the courage to seek the heart of wisdom and truth in Scripture. The height of spiritual attainment transcends literalism, and is about integrating the deepest meaning rather than discerning rules and prescriptions.
Too often it seems to me we miss the forest for the trees, a difference of critical importance in determining whether our religious experience leads us to enlightenment and openness, or to
Comment from purcellneil - 2/14/05 11:14 AM
June 27th, 2005 at 9:40 am
The problem with the Theory of Evolution is not that it disproves a God and his existence but that it does contradict the Bible, but since you don’t see the Bible as God’s Infallible Word but only a guide post and see modern science as the one infallible that is not a big deal to you. I am not going to argue with you or try to change your thinking about the Bible, that is not for me to do, but God’s who you say to follow and believe in.
I am not some backward hick that thinks all science is bad. And I know there are many creationist scientists. The thing about Science is it is always changing and revising it’s theories as they learn and grow and find facts that contradict past ideas, but the Bible, God’s Word, never changes, it stays the same and it is Truth. I do think most sound science and
archeology proves what the Bible says to be true and that yes there is Science in the Bible.
Comment from hunybea4him - 2/14/05 11:56 AM
June 27th, 2005 at 9:40 am
contiuned..
Evolution says the world has been here for Millions of years and there has been death and suffering before man came to the scene. The Bible says death and suffering is a result of sin and that sin entered the world with the fall of Adam and because of sin we need Jesus, the one who atoned for all sins if you believe and follow him. Also the Bible is clear not fuzzy about how long it took for God to create the world, the Hebrew meaning of the word day used in the scripture talking about the creation is a literal day. There are many words the original writer could of used in Hebrew for day, but he was inspired to used the one for literal day. If you are going to start to doubt right from Genesis of what God says, why believe anything written in the Bible for that matter? The Bible is very rellivant even if it was written durring anceint times because God knew the end from the beginning and we can relate our lives to what he says in the Bible.
I could write several journal entries on this topic lol but that is not what I had planned today. Have a sweet Valentines Day Pat.
Much Love,
Mary
Comment from hunybea4him - 2/14/05 11:57 AM
June 27th, 2005 at 9:41 am
Mary,
I don’t consider you a “backward hick” at all, and I don’t dismiss the Bible just because I happen to believe that modern science suggests a different process than the simplistic one suggested in the book of Genesis.
But the Bible was written by MAN, NOT by God. True, the men who wrote the Bible were certainly INSPIRED by God, but THEY wrote it. If God had written the Bible Himself, it would be one thing. But because MAN wrote it, even with the best of intentions, by definition, it MUST fall short of perfection because God didn’t do it himself, right?
Again, I’m not saying that the Bible is WRONG, so much as I’m saying that it is a simplified view of things that allows his believers of the time to understand. That doesn’t mean it isn’t every bit as relevant now as it was then; it just means that as we understand more, we must broaden our sense of who God is and what he has provided for us.
Who is to say, for example, that God couldn’t have hidden all of the “scientific evidence” that has been discovered about fossils and evolution? Perhaps He intentionally left this trail of evidence because He wanted modern-day mankind to understand the extreme complexities that only He could have set into motion.
As we progress with technology and science, many of us feel that WE are all powerful; such illusions are simple in a modern world. But if you look at the evidence of how the species evolved, it is a massive system. I can’t believe it was random and we just happened to end up this way. There must have been a driving force behind it.
My belief system allows for both science and the Bible to exist, and BOTH support the notion that God is the creator. If you interpret the Bible literally, thereby discounting scientific discoveries, then what do the fossils mean? Where did those animals come from? Are dinosaurs a fantasy? Did they exist WITH man? Did they never exist at all? Where did those bones come from?
Those are the logic problems I run into when interpreting the Bible literally.
June 27th, 2005 at 9:41 am
I don’t believe in Evolution. I believe that scientists discovered a different type of simian. An attempt to legitimize “Darwin’s Theory” of Evolution.
Where does it state in the Bible that God is making man in His Image, and that man evolves? Wouldn’t that be like saying that God is a simian if one believes the Theory of Evolution?
Scientists can’t measure the soul. Where does the soul come from, if not from God and why wouldn’t it go back to Him? Where does the soul of a newborn baby originate?
At a funeral, the essence that was uniquely that person is gone, and only the body remains. If a person doesn’t believe in God, then where does the essence of that person go?
I believe in God, and it’s not my intention to force my views on anyone. What’s the old quote “someone convinced against their will is of the same opinion still” and that’s just the point. God wants those who want Him by choice, not force.
Since you’ve opened the door to the topic, I’m just expressing my views.
You have a lot of guts, Patrick, to open this discussion. I say that in a nice way and think you enjoy controversy. I respect your right to your opinions, and actually enjoy your unpredictable topics.
Right after our last breath we’ll all know the truth.
Comment from camaroisle050856 - 2/14/05 12:56 PM
June 27th, 2005 at 9:42 am
“Where did those animals come from? Are dinosaurs a fantasy?”
Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible as “Behemoth” read Job Chapter 40:15 through 24. “A tail like cedar” where the Cedars of Lebanon could be 100 feet. Know any animals like that besides dinosaurs?
Genesis 1:20 -25 is where God created animals before man.
Comment from camaroisle050856 - 2/14/05 1:30 PM
June 27th, 2005 at 9:43 am
Scientists can’t measure the soul.
Exactly. Just because they can’t measure it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
My question is, why is it that if it CAN’T be proven by science, it’s okay to believe that it exists, yet if science DOES offer proof of something, it MUST be wrong or based upon a set of lies? Why must we only be OPEN-MINDED one way?
I’m not saying that the Bible is WRONG…I’m merely suggesting the possibility that the Biblical story of creation is more of a parable on how it happened than a scientifically-accurate text on what did and didn’t occur, simplified to make those who wouldn’t have understood more complicated explanations understand the bigger point.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, either…I’m just asking where the line is. It’s not so much that I enjoy controversy but rather that I enjoy being able to discuss topics that some people might otherwise shy away from in a polite and educated manner. Thanks for joining in…I appreciate the input.
June 27th, 2005 at 9:43 am
Let me begin with the following disclaimer: I am a Christian *and* I am a teacher at a Christian school (I teach 9-12th grade English, however, so the topic of evolution doesn’t come up).
That said: I whole-heartedly believe in both Creation and evolution. Okay, maybe I like to have my cake and eat it too, but really, it just makes sense (at least it does in my head). As you pointed out, the Bible was written by humans, not God. I believe that time, in their tellings of certain Biblical stories, was….well, fluid. Who knows how long six days may have really been?
And as for evolution not showing up in the Bible? Again, Man wrote the Bible, not God. We’re certainly not perfect. Perhaps it was overlooked, or edited out, or avoided. However, I don’t see how the scientific evidence can be ignored. Besides, what’s so wrong with God creating evolution?
Thanks, Patrick, for being brave enough to tackle controversial topics!
Debi
http://journals.aol.com/englishqueen1202/ImJustAWomanInSearchOfDefinition/
Comment from englishqueen1202 - 2/14/05 4:32 PM
June 27th, 2005 at 9:44 am
To honeybea: I don’t see anything in the theory of evolution that contradicts the Bible, unless someone believes that a “day” in Genesis is a 24 hour day. I think it was a long time into human history before the concept of a 24-hour day was developed. The 6 “days” of creation just make a way to narrate the story in six parts and to emphasize the conecept of a day of rest for God and humans. I’ve long thought it interesting that the Gneesis creation story pretty much follows what we know about evolution in temrs of sequence.
I would profoundly (and courteously, of course) disagree that there can be any such thing as a creationist scientist. What those people do bears no resemblance to modern science. People are certainly entitled to believe what they want, but they can’t call something science unless it’s backed up by legitimate empirical evidence.
Comment from oceanmrc - 2/14/05 6:28 PM
June 27th, 2005 at 9:44 am
To Englishqueen: You’ve never taught Inherit the Wind? That’s a fun one, and you get to do evolution AND point of view.
(I’m a Christian (100% Mainline P. and 97% Quaker according to Patrick’s test) and a social studies, sometimes English, teacher in a Jewish school!)
http://journals.aol.com/oceanmrc/ALaywomansLectionary/
http://journals.aol.com/oceanmrc/MidlifeMatters/
Comment from oceanmrc - 2/14/05 6:34 PM
June 27th, 2005 at 9:44 am
Thanks for allowing me to express my viewpoint on your Journal, Patrick.
I respect the right of every person to have a different opinion than mine. It’s just that I found the answers I needed to sustain my faith in the Bible and I am still learning each time I read it. If this life is a test, I’d like to at least study for the exam so I don’t fail. The Strong’s Concordance is quite a bit of help in interpreting the Bible.
One of the verses about “a camel going through the eye of a needle” used to bother me. What did they mean? Then I found out that the entire interpretation was “needle GATE” not a sewing needle.
I love to learn more about the Bible because it’s interesting!
To discuss religion in a respectful manner with others is a great idea,
Patrick. I read your comment back to me, and I think you are respectful and fair.
Comment from camaroisle050856 - 2/15/05 12:10 AM
June 27th, 2005 at 9:44 am
Camaro - thank you for your interesting comments.
I am intrigued by your view of life as a test (Very Islamic, I believe.) I think that that approoach must give you strength and peace, but I’m curious about it. I’m taking a class on the German mystic Meister Eckhart, and last night we were talking about how often people view life from a vantage point of fear, which means froma perspective of scarcity. To me personally, and not saying this is the case for you or anyone else, viewing life as a test would be viewing life as one of scarcity rather than richness — as though there is some limit to God’s love. I’m sure you don’t see it that way, and I’ll be interested to see your ideas fleshed out.
Thanks, Patrick, for this opportunity.
http://journals.aol.com/oceanmrc/ALaywomansLectionary/
http://journals.aol.com/oceanmrc/MidlifeMatters/
Comment from oceanmrc - 2/15/05 8:08 AM
June 27th, 2005 at 9:44 am
Let me expand on the thought of life being a test. Can we be tempted away from God? God wants those who love Him not out of fear. It’s great comfort for me to be able to pray, and there have been times in my life when God was there for me when I have needed inner strength.
Just knowing that He is listening and cares what I have to say and think gives me such peace of mind because each of us is a creation of God. This life is not easy for anyone no matter what possessions one may own. The only things we take with us when we die is the good that we’ve done. If we’ve repented truly of our sins, they are forgotten. The good is remembered.
Good can be a smile, a kind word, a good deed. That warm feeling that you get when you doing something nice for someone, where do you think it originates?
Comment from camaroisle050856 - 2/15/05 10:54 AM
June 27th, 2005 at 9:45 am
Have you been reading my journal and comments? There’s some brain-sharing going around AOL-J.
I rationalize the existence of a Creator while adhering to the evolutionary construct as well: http://journals.aol.com/pollysci/randomness/entries/979
~tara
Comment from pollysci - 2/15/05 3:41 PM
June 27th, 2005 at 7:27 pm
Patrick,
Excellent entry. I’ve been going through the comments here and I thought I would respond to this one:
“Where did those animals come from? Are dinosaurs a fantasy?”
Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible as “Behemoth” read Job Chapter 40:15 through 24. “A tail like cedar” where the Cedars of Lebanon could be 100 feet. Know any animals like that besides dinosaurs?
Genesis 1:20 -25 is where God created animals before man.
This is actually quite funny that creationists point to this passage because it is completely lost in translation here, folks. The ‘tail’ that is mentioned is actually the animals penis. The behemoth is a hippopotomous typically; but in this passage in Job it refers more to a mythical character which represents chaos and evil and god’s dominion over it. Much of the dramatic and often lurid word play of the Old Testament is lost in translation. This is one of the best examples.
peace,
dave
Comment from ibspiccoli4life - 2/15/05 9:16 PM
June 27th, 2005 at 7:27 pm
Dave, would you mind telling me where I can find the interpretation of what you’ve just explained in the comment below in its original form?
Thank you.
Comment from camaroisle050856 - 2/15/05 11:53 PM
June 27th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Each person must choose their own interpretation of religion. I am putting forth my beliefs, while respecting other people’s beliefs the same way I expect mine to be received, without any intent of being sarcastic about the way others view their religion.
As far as the controversy with the word “Behemoth” is concerned, one might look it up in the Dictionary, however, it’s still up to the individual how to interpret the meaning in the Bible of it.
If you feel differently than I do, I respect your right to do so, but would appreciate the origin of why you feel that way and where I can find the information regarding your interpretation.
Each person is responsible in my opinion for their actions during life to a Supreme Being who created us and to whom we owe our lives. He is the Father who loves His children, but may not like what we do, sometimes disciplining us like a good parent, but tempered with mercy. He asks that we try our best, and is willing to forgive if we’re truly sorry when we make mistakes. What He wants from us is love and obedience, like a parent, and I don’t feel like that’s too much to ask.
I reiterate I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. However, I haven’t slammed anyone else’s beliefs, just presented my own.
Comment from camaroisle050856 - 2/16/05 11:15 AM
June 27th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Much of the word play in the Bible is lost in translation. This has lead many a creationist to argue that the Behemoth must be a dinosaur. There are a number of sources where you can learn more about this. A couple minutes of searching I found the following link: http://www.televar.com/~jnj/item6.htm I first came across this matter in my first year Hebrew class. Since then I’ve seen nothing that would undermine this interpretation.
dave
Comment from ibspiccoli4life - 2/16/05 8:49 PM
June 27th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
19 of the 21 commenters tried to reconcile the fairy tale tales in the bible with scientific fact. The bible - we say - was written by men. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that. Many of these men were afraid to die. So they invented a nice place to go after they died - a life everlasting! They invented a god and - for the Jesusians later - a son of god, who never had sex with a woman. He lived and slept with 12 other men for 40 months suggesting he was a gay god. But all that aside, we do not believe in the EXISTENCE of a god. When I was teaching in China for three years, I explored Buddhism. Same problem: live badly now, you come back in the next life as a Republican. Live well, you come back as Bill Gates. Labels? Tom Jefferson and I call ourselves Deists. Some intelligent force put this whole universe together - with thousands of planets over a period of 15 BILLION years. There IS life on other planets. Not as we know it. We evolved over 15 million years - day before yesterday in sidereal time. “Atheists” have a BELIEF in something that doesn’t exist. That’s not us. We do not worship nothing. We do not worship ANYthing. We believe in human beings. We believe - in spite of our selfish animal natures, in spite of our greed, in spite of the Inquisition, the Holocaust, Iraq; 30,000 children DYING EVERY DAY of hunger and disease; in spite of all our human frailties - we ARE capable of loving one another and great empathy for suffering millions in disasters. We also believe, as all living beings on this Earth, we will die; our bodies will turn to dust and we will be forgotten in a generation or two. Just like every animal on Earth whether they can type or not. Rob - An animal who can type
Comment from wangfuzhong2 - 2/17/05 12:51 AM
June 27th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
With all respect, Rob, you have a right to your beliefs, and I don’t think anyone here could begin to convince you to think otherwise. That’s not my purpose.
I accept the fact that you consider the bible to be a collection of “fairy tales.” Fine for you.
Others take it a little more seriously. Some feel it is the literal word. Others feel the concepts are generally true, if the “scientific explanation” have been radically simplified.
We all choose what we wish to believe based upon what we are able to reconcile ourself. Your post makes me wonder whether you are willing to respect other people’s belief with the same amount of fervor that you would demand that others respect yours.
Patrick
Comment from pattboy92 - 2/18/05 1:32 PM
June 27th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
I wanted to give my two cents on this. It seems like it is a good debate. In my opinion, it is hard to believe in creation and evolution at the same time. My reason for saying this is because evolution’s main principal is that the fittest and most well adjusted organisms lived. The others died out. ‘Survival of the fittest’, if you will. However, all creationist I am associated with believe that God set forth creation and everything was perfect during this time.
My point is this. There could not be any death in a perfect world. Death was not brought about until after the first sin. Therefore, how could evolution, which involves death, happend during the creation.
In this post, I side with neither. I simply say they cannot co-exist. Again, my opinion.
Comment from crossnthecreek - 2/19/05 12:43 AM
June 27th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
Patrick:
I have given this idea several years worth of consideration. I have even written a really lengthy discourse on it here: http://myjabezjourney.blogspot.com/2005/02/zero-week-journey-begins.html
It is convenient, I think, but not theologically plausible, to suggest that Creation Theory and Evolution Theory can co-exist. One is, and one isn’t. Genesis says that God did. Evolution says that God didn’t, and spends all of its energy attempting to prove its point. The two theories are inherently contradictory in their nature, yet both depend on the very same basis:faith.
The Bible is the literal, inerrant, GOD BREATHED Word. Period–Insofar as it has been correctly translated (and there are over 9,000 proven mis-translations in the 1611 KJV). Because man got it wrong does not mean that God did. Science spent hundreds of years proving that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and was flat as a Compact Disk.
The Bible does not contradict itself-ever. Science has, to date, not offered one single iota of contradictory evidence to the Bible. Science has only validated, in every instance, the truth of the Bible.
That’s a pretty impressive track record that the Evolutionist Theory cannot claim. The difficulty with the posit is not that God did, or did not Create the Universe, the Earth, and those who inhabit this orb. The problem is the exclusive nature of the argument itself (which I think I clearly demonstrate herein). Science does not claim to defend God, but seeks to contend with God. Sir Isaac Newton (qualify as a scientist?) spent most of his life, and over 90% of his writing life, on the same question–and came to the conclusion that God Created the heavens and the Earth, and that Evolution could not have happened. Newton wrote over 1,000,000 words on the subject. He used the Prophecies of Daniel as his (amazingly enough) source proof after expending over 50% of his words trying to discount them.
If we cannot safely breach the chasm of Genesis 1:2, then Genesis 1:1 is the only Bible we will ever know. And we can dance around that one for as long as we dare. God, like gravity, is not effected by our belief, our contention, or our disregard. God is, and has always been, God. Gravity works every single time. God does tend to operate within what we laughingly refer to as “Physical Law”, but is not constrained by it.
I’d be interested in what you think of my viewpoint. (And, I do declare it to be only my humble opine.)
Unohu
http://journals.aol.com/kybudman55/ContemplationsofSchizophrenia
Comment from kybudman55 - 2/22/05 12:48 PM
June 27th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
Bud,
You raise an interesting question. You point out that there are over 9,000 proven mistranslations in the King James version of 1611. You go on to say that we got it wrong but that doesn’t mean god got it wrong. But a serious problem arises because we have none–zero–of the original writings. Everything we have is a translation of something previous. So if the translators of the King James version made over 9,000 mistakes, compound that by nearly 1500 years of copying and translating and we have to ask ourselves if anything we know can be trusted.
As to science discrediting the Bible. It does so in a million ways. The Bible refers to a bat as a bird. Rabbits do not eat their cud. Donkeys and Serpents do not speak, nor do serpents eat dust. The earth is not flat, though it is repeatedly referred to as such in the Bible. And don’t try bringing out that passage from Isaiah that uses the word for a circle (the earth is not a circle, it’s a sphere and Isaiah had a very good Hebrew word for sphere which he chose not to use).
The Bible is not a science book. To claim it is will put you in a very untennable position. I think the best one can do is to view religion and science as operating in different domains. Religion will answer questions that science cannot answer and will never try to answer: why? Science is more concerned with ‘how?’
dave
Comment from ibspiccoli4life - 2/22/05 6:24 PM
June 27th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
How about this. Comparing science to religion is like comparing apples to oranges. It’s like dividing one by zero. Try applying superposition to the creation story. It happened and didn’t and both and neither at the same time. It makes about as much sense as any argument I’ve heard.
Comment from do0odie - 2/27/05 8:48 PM
June 27th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
Comparing science and religion may be comparing apples to oranges, however when one offers evidence that life began one way and the other offers a differing suggestion, it’s only natural to compare the two and determine whether there can be any validity to either story or both. The two may take vastly different approaches to explaining the same thing, but at some point you have to decide for yourself what you believe…and at that point, I don’t know how you WOULDN’T compare the two explanations.
Patrick
Comment from pattboy92 - 2/27/05 10:43 PM
June 27th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
Faith is based on an inner concept of what I believe to be true, “Faith is believing what we cannot see” and the Bible.
I checked out the web site that Dave directed me to earlier, and thanks for providing the link.
I still feel and believe the same way. My inner feeling knows that God is real. Religion is just one of those things in life that each person must decide individually and be responsible for the decision after death.
As for why more isn’t written about past history, what happenned to the Great Library? Did it exist as a Wonder of the World? What information if it did exist was lost?
Thanks for allowing us to express our views, Patrick.
Comment from camaroisle050856 - 3/3/05 11:11 AM
June 27th, 2005 at 7:31 pm
hi, i’m glad you gave very moderate comments on both views. i would like to propose my web page which has alot of info i’ve gathered from various scientists’ conferences, books, videos. these degreed scientists believe in a young earth and believe no vertical evolution ever happened (new genetic information added). for a quick perusal, just skim down the yellow paragraph headings.
hometown.aol.com/kjswann/creation
enjoy!
Comment from kjswann - 3/12/05 11:48 AM
June 27th, 2005 at 7:31 pm
Very Interesting!
-Mandy
http://journals.aol.com/boombie02/MandysTreasureChest/
Comment from boombie02 - 3/30/05 4:46 PM
June 27th, 2005 at 10:30 pm
Excellent entry, Patrick. I’m not a Biblical literalist either, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize the truth of the Bible. Metaphorical truth is as real and powerful as literal truth, and sometimes gets the point across more effectively. I look forward to more from you here. Cynthia (sistercdr)
June 28th, 2005 at 2:58 am
I totally agree that creation and evolution can co-exist.
June 28th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
I also agree with your opinion and theories Patrick. The closed mindedness and rigidity in religious dogma is so sad! Why must people think that in order to believe in the Bible, you must believe in it LITERALLY?? There are so many contradictions….how could you take it literal? And aside from the contradictions…why would god create us with such intelligence to debate, to wonder, to investigate and ponder….if all we were ever going to do…was just take things literally. LOL
Liza
September 4th, 2005 at 7:37 am
Beautifully put.