Okay, I completely misinterpreted what you had written. I was racking my brain trying to recall my earliest days of Sunday school or Bible class when there were other Creation theories being discussed and I just couldn't come up w/ anything...LOL. Definitely a brain fart moment.

I don't want to hijack this thread further, so if you're interested in discussing/debating your thoughts on interpretation of those passages, feel free to PM me.

We have assumed a logical progression. On this point, I am not fully convinced that we aren't observing various extinct species (I don't want to argue the terminology because I'm not a practicing scientist - is species correct?) or even groups of humans. The only explanation for our findings does not lie in macroevolution.

Quote:

Are you just believing in this notion, in spite of evidence to the contrary, because it fits you spiritually? That's completely fine if you are, but you seem to be doing the "I know all the evidence points toward X, and I'm fine with you believing X, but I believe Y" dance, and I genuinely want to understand.

In a sense, I am. My worldview stems from my faith. However, I am not a proponent for completely unfounded belief. With regard to my understanding of origin, there is a genuine possibility that macroevolution is an inaccurate judgment of the data.

Quote:

Note that almost every (non-evangelical) Christian denomination accepts macroevolution as correct, including the notoriously stodgy Vatican (this point is also geared toward your "plenty of non-Christians believe in intelligent design" comments earlier).

You're getting into territory that is touchy - something I'd rather not get into right here, right now. ;)

Quote:

Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with believing that God created the universe in order to set the process of life in motion - this would be akin to God creating the legos with which to build the space station and all that good stuff. However, it is patently incorrect to imply that since there's no other explanation, it must be God - it's a twisting of Occam's Razor to incorrect use.

I don't disagree. My answer to the question is God. Your answer to the question is otherwise. I can't prove my opinion to you, so the question is unanswerable. However, it must be asked as it is the basis for my worldview. I ask it with the knowledge that you disagree, but with the hope that it will serve to further explain me.

For me, there is no other explanation. So, yes, "it must be God."

Where I am coming from the perspective that God is in charge, you are coming from the perspective that science has the answers (or rather potentially has the answers). What you seem to be perceiving as contradiction is my consideration of what you believe...I understand what you're saying and, coming from your starting point, it would make sense. But, I don't agree.

Thanks for the clarification, it's definitely been interesting. Now:

Honestly, let's get into it - which particular sect do you believe in? Why are these others wrong with regard to evolution? This is all about free exchange of ideas, and I'm extremely curious.

You're talking about theology and biblical interpretation. Suffice it to say, certain sects of Christianity take the Bible completely metaphorically and, often, pick and choose what to believe.

I am certainly willing to tell you my position. I follow the teachings of the early church which includes such things as:

1) God is triune - Father, Son, Spirit are three equal natures of the same being
2) Christians are responsible for being disciples - my favorite book on the subject is I Peter (it outlines what Christians are supposed to be)
3) Salvation is by grace through Jesus - only through the sacrifice of Jesus is one able to commune directly with the father
4) Salvation is not gained by works HOWEVER works are an outward showing of faith and are demanded by God
5) The Spirit is currently active in the church
6) Christians are in a personal relationship with God
7) Scriptural teachings are accurate and inspired by God

The Christians you have referred to are most often high church (more concerned with hierarchy/church government than the relationship with a personal God - and, no, I'm not making a determination on which is right) and take liberties in biblical interpretation.

ETA: On the other side, you have such denominations as pentecostal/charismatic/third wave who lean more toward the relational and reject structure. These people are often very literal in biblical interpretation.

If you want to label me anything, I'm a conservative evangelical who believes in an equal balance between religion (sacraments, church order, pastoring, etc.) and spirituality (personal relationship with God, worship, life change, etc.)

I am not a relativist nor am I a pluralist - by any means.


Edited because I can't count...

Is this unilateral for you?

I only ask because there are numerous contradictions and mathematical/historical inaccuracies within the bible - for instance, Genesis is most likely two different stories fused together, as there are completely different (and non-relational) aspects described. It would seem that completely literal interpretation of the bible would become arduous accounting for these - how do you do it?

But what about translations? There could be one meaning for a word in one language and several in another. Wouldn't accuracy be somewhat lost?

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I'm just curious as to where you get your information about contradictions in the bible. There are many things that seem to be contradictions, but if you study cross references and "rightly divide the word of truth" there are no mistakes.

You ask how we (those who take a completely literal interpretation of the bible) do it and the only answer I have is through faith. "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." I know to many of you that answer is not good enough and you want "proof" or otherwise it's not a good enough answer, but that's the only answer I have. If that "blind" faith makes me stupid, well then so be it, but I do have a faith and belief in something that I have based my entire life on.

An interesting side note:
There is a little known belief that the creation story in genesis was not in fact the original creation of species. In Genesis 1:28 God tells Adam to REPLENISH the earth, indicating that there was something here BEFORE. Interesting.

There are many who believe that there is one accurate translation of the bible. Also, the bible tells us that "God is not the author of confusion..."

I've got to quibble with this characterization a little, at least to the extent that it might imply there are only 2 kinds of Christians: those who interpret the Bible as literally inerrent and those take the Bible "completely metaphorically" (to use your words) and, "often, pick and choose what to believe."

I think there is at least one other group, which would probably include Catholicism, Orthodoxy and most of classical Protestantism: the Bible is composed of a variety books in a variety of literary styles. Some of its contents must be read literally or as history, while other portions are not to be read literally, but instead to be read metaphorically, poetically, etc. We cannot pick and choose what to believe, but we do have an obligation to try and understand how the different parts of the Bible are to be read, and we miss the point if we take literally something that is not meant to be taken literally.

The parables provide an excellent snapshot of this phenomenon. I will agree with you that "Scriptural teachings are accurate and inspired by God." But does that mean that the parable of the Good Samaritan is to be read literally? (I actually heard one preacher claim once that, because the Bible is literally inerrent, all of the parables are accounts of real events.) If we read it literally, we miss the point. The Church Fathers read it allegorically. Often today, it is read metaphorically. The point of the parable, the "teaching" simply will not be found in a literal reading.

THe Hebrew Scriptures were originally written in, well, Hebrew. Hebrew to English; Hebrew to French, etc can vary slightly because some words just don't translate very well.

ETA: A prof I had said that in the original Hebrew, God takes a "side of Adam" rather than one of his ribs.

ETA II: If God isn't an author of confusion, then why are there two Creation stories?

Yes. Which is why anyone who really wants to study Scriptural texts needs resources to understand the original Hebrew and Greek.

Because the confusion only comes if one insists on literal interpretation of the creation accounts. An indication, perhaps, that the point of the stories is not to be found in any historical accuracy they may have.

:) I wasn't ignoring the spectrum between the two. In fact, in studying scripture from a scholarly position I do realize that different genres are to be taken differently. In addition, each translation (into English) cannot be separated from the time in which it was produced. MANY translations commit eisegesis (reading meaning into the text) rather than performing exegesis (drawing meaning from the text).

So, in commenting that "Scriptural teachings are accurate and inspired by God," I in no way intended to suggest that I believe the Bible to be literal in all cases.

In my previous response, I was attempting to condense the extremes into as short a post as possible.

Often, people who claim contradictions are parroting what they've heard. But, it's obvious that your statement is the result of serious questioning.

To answer your question, the Genesis issue is a result of a lack of understanding mythic writing in the Jewish tradition. I have not found any contradiction in the Bible as I've studied. When I find something that doesn't make any sense, I note it. Most often, when I've finally taken in the larger message, the contradiction disappears as it was never a real issue, only my misunderstanding.

*I also wanted to note that when I say that scripture is accurate and God inspired, I'm referring to the message and the lessons. I will be the first to point out some shaky grammar in the NT - at this point, I can only intelligently comment on the Greek since that's what I've studied thus far. Human error does not undermine the authority of the message - in fact, I believe that through some of the human errors, the Holy Spirit has actually been able to convey an even deeper meaning to some passages.

Again, my faith in the God inspired scripture is based on my complete and utter faith in God.


ETA: There is another element to biblical study that you most certainly will not accept: direction of the Holy Spirit. There are so many interpretations of the Bible because people are intelligent and inventive. They have genuine questions and make profound statements.

But, in order to glean the message of the Bible, from my basis of belief, one must submit to the direction of the Holy Spirit along with serious critical study.

I doubted you were, but I just didn't want to leave the inference out there.

Enjoying your posts.