Doesn't evolutionary creation contradict a plain reading of the Bible?

[@stephencastro4723]

Plain literal reading of the Bible without understanding the cultural, linguistic and theological concepts of the original audience produce YEC's, Atheists and others who hold erroneous views of the sacred texts.

[@timothymcguire5126]

Looks like we got some salty YECs and Atheists in the comments.

[@gallifreyandefense]

haha. so true

[@kieran296]

Well, you can believe in an Old Earth Model without believing Neo-Darwinism. Lol.

[@faithtruth8036]

@@kieran296 The ancient Hebrew took the text literally . It is funny how they didn't understand how their own writing was formed.

[@faithtruth8036]

@@gallifreyandefenseNo, the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds. Jesus was speaking proverbially. That is, he wasn't making a statement of absolute fact but using a proverbial style of communication.
There are different kinds of mustard trees in Israel and the mustard seed was the smallest of all the seeds known there and used by those in Israel. Also, notice that Jesus says that when it is full grown it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree so that the birds nest in it. There were many gardens in Israel with many types of plants, many of which were larger than the mustard plant. The olive tree for example, can grow to 20 feet or more. The mustard tree known as Salvadora persica has extremely small seeds and grows into a small bush. Brassica nigra is a mustard plant that grows to about 8 to 10 feet when mature and is probably the one Jesus was using for his illustration. Jesus would have known that it wasn't the largest of garden plants because of the prevalence of larger plants. Therefore, he was not making a botanical statement of fact. Instead, he was drawing attention to the comparison of the "smallest" to the "largest" and using it to illustrate how the Kingdom of heaven will expand in the world from a very small beginning to a huge presence.

[@faithtruth8036]

ua-cam.com/video/ZXP32ZzEgZY/v-deo.html

[@akimoetam1282]

If young earthers follow their “logic” they would believe that the earth is flat, the sky is a dome, and above that dome is a literal ocean. But sure the text is “historical”

[@brk754]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism To a large extent, the early Christian Church Fathers read creation history as an allegory, and followed Philo's ideas of time beginning with an instantaneous creation, with days not meant literally. Christian orthodoxy rejected the second century Gnostic belief that the Book of Genesis was purely allegorical, but without taking a purely literal view of the texts. Thus Origen believed that the physical world is ‘literally’ a creation of God, but did not take the chronology or the days as ‘literal’. Similarly, Saint Basil the Great in the fourth century while literal in many ways, described creation as instantaneous and timeless, being immeasurable and indivisible.

[@brk754]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas, like Augustine, asserted the need to hold the truth of scripture without wavering while cautioning "that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should not adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." That last sentence reveals exactly what is wrong with literal readings of Creation and - an entirely modern way of interpreting scripture - it only gathered steam in the last hundred years. You turn people away from Jesus. There is no compromise with it and therefore no engagement. At least BioLogos attempts to engage in a serious thoughtful manner. Jesus told us to question and use discernment.

[@jaredyoung5353]

The YEC me of 3years ago would have hated this vid. I know now after serious searching and reading that you guys at Biologos are doing God work

[@faithtruth8036]

So now Jesus interpretation of scripture needs to be deafened against his own church. Perhaps we are starting to see the end of the last days.

[@jaredyoung5353]

Well we are but not for those reasons. We seeing last days because the church is backing away from sin.
Look if the ANE interpretation is different than ours then we need to change our mind.

[@faithtruth8036]

@@jaredyoung5353 Give a link

[@faithtruth8036]

"Look if the ANE interpretation is different than". This does not make sense

[@faithtruth8036]

No, the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds. Jesus was speaking proverbially. That is, he wasn't making a statement of absolute fact but using a proverbial style of communication.
There are different kinds of mustard trees in Israel and the mustard seed was the smallest of all the seeds known there and used by those in Israel. Also, notice that Jesus says that when it is full grown it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree so that the birds nest in it. There were many gardens in Israel with many types of plants, many of which were larger than the mustard plant. The olive tree for example, can grow to 20 feet or more. The mustard tree known as Salvadora persica has extremely small seeds and grows into a small bush. Brassica nigra is a mustard plant that grows to about 8 to 10 feet when mature and is probably the one Jesus was using for his illustration. Jesus would have known that it wasn't the largest of garden plants because of the prevalence of larger plants. Therefore, he was not making a botanical statement of fact. Instead, he was drawing attention to the comparison of the "smallest" to the "largest" and using it to illustrate how the Kingdom of heaven will expand in the world from a very small beginning to a huge presence.

[@MissMonotheist]

As a Christian I have done hours upon hours of research on this, and while BioLogos's stance on creation makes the most sense, my remaining question that I cannot seems to find answer to is regarding the geneology/ancestry mentioned in first 2 books of Bible. If Genesis is largely allegorical then wouldn't that make the ancestry lines mentioned throughout it (Noah, Abraham) erroneous? And if so, what would this mean for the New Testament and the ancestry of Jesus?

[@brk754]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism The first century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria admired the literal narrative of passages concerning the Patriarchs, but in other passages viewed the literal interpretation as being for those unable to see an underlying deeper meaning. For example, he noted that Moses said the world was created in six days, but did not consider this as a length of time as "we must think of God as doing all things simultaneously" and the six days were mentioned because of a need for order and according with a perfect number. Genesis was about real events, but God through Moses described them in figurative or allegorical language.

[@brk754]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism Augustine of Hippo in On the Literal Meaning of Genesis was insistent that the Book of Genesis describes the creation of physical objects, but also shows creation occurring simultaneously, with the days of creation being categories for didactic reasons, a logical framework which has nothing to do with time. For him, light was the illumination of angels rather than visible light, and spiritual light was just as literal as physical light. Augustine emphasized that the text was difficult to understand and should be reinterpreted as new knowledge became available. In particular, Christians should not make absurd dogmatic interpretations of scripture which contradict what people know from physical evidence.

[@faithtruth8036]

For four hundred years before Augustine the church believed in the literal interpretation. Augstine started off well and later embraced a lot of strange doctrine.

[@faithtruth8036]

No, the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds. Jesus was speaking proverbially. That is, he wasn't making a statement of absolute fact but using a proverbial style of communication.
There are different kinds of mustard trees in Israel and the mustard seed was the smallest of all the seeds known there and used by those in Israel. Also, notice that Jesus says that when it is full grown it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree so that the birds nest in it. There were many gardens in Israel with many types of plants, many of which were larger than the mustard plant. The olive tree for example, can grow to 20 feet or more. The mustard tree known as Salvadora persica has extremely small seeds and grows into a small bush. Brassica nigra is a mustard plant that grows to about 8 to 10 feet when mature and is probably the one Jesus was using for his illustration. Jesus would have known that it wasn't the largest of garden plants because of the prevalence of larger plants. Therefore, he was not making a botanical statement of fact. Instead, he was drawing attention to the comparison of the "smallest" to the "largest" and using it to illustrate how the Kingdom of heaven will expand in the world from a very small beginning to a huge presence.

[@ChristAcolyte]

@@faithtruth8036 You assert much but prove little

[@vegetasapologetics3214]

Their were three days before god made the sun. (These 7"days" were not literal days).

[@jjsaexclusive6574]

In Hebrew language day is stated as yom which is a time period unidentifiable by men

[@Diamondraw4Real]

@@jjsaexclusive6574 it would be in the Arabic reading as well. A long period of time or an eon. Yaum is a day or a very long time.

[@MrFossil367ab45gfyth]

Yeah I agree. I think that God created everything over millions to billions of years. A day to God can be like this for all we know.

[@vegetasapologetics3214]

@@MrFossil367ab45gfyth 2 Peter 3:8-9 (ESV)
8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that …

[@FredZwarts]

Yes, there seems to be a paradox between the "creation week" and the history of the world as science describes it, but it is not a contradiction. It is a paradox we see with all human "creations", too. Look at books, movies, computer games and you will see the same paradox. The most important thing to realize is that the creator is not a part of the creation, they have a.o. different time-lines. Computer games are perhaps the best analogy, but I am not a gamer, so let's take the book "Harry Potter" as an example. J.K. Rowlings needed 7 years to write the book, so she needed 7 years to create a new world. On the first page of the book it is almost Harry's 12th birthday. Later in the book we find a history that dates back several centuries before the beginning of the book. Compare that to our world:
Harry's world was created in 7 years.
Our world was created in 6 days.
These 7 years cannot be placed before page 1 of the book, i.e. between Harry's 5th and his 12th birthday.
The 6 days cannot be placed before the first day of Adam as written in de bible, the day that God contacted Adam.
The time-line of the creator and the time-line of its creation are different time lines. Our time-line is part of God's creation. I have no idea how we should interprete God's time-line.
When Rowling finished her creation, it was not at page 1, but it included a history and a future.
When God finished the creation, it was not that one moment of Genesis 1, but it included a history and future.
The history of Harry's birth and the history of the Harry's school (several centuries old) do not contradict the 7 years of the creation.
The history of the universe and the history of the Earth as science sees it, do not contradict the 6 days of the creation.
A hypothetical scientist in Harry's world, is unable to dectect how his world was created (i.e., whether Rowlings used a type writer or a PC).
The process of the God's creation is not accessible to scientific research (i.e. that God created everything by His word).
Although a hypothetical scientist in Harry's world will never find the 7 years of the creation, these 7 years are very real.
Although a scientist in our world will not be able to find the 6 days of the creation (or traces thereof), these days are very real.
Again, the time-line of the creator and the creation are different.
The birth of Harry is not the process of Harry's creation by Rowlings.
The evolution of the universe is not the process of the creation by God.
Perhaps Rowling first created Harry and later created his mother, but that does not mean that in Harry's world there has been a time that Harry was not descending from his mother.
Perhaps God first created the Earth and the light and later created the sun, but it does not mean that in the history of the Earth here has been a time of light not coming from the sun.
Conclusion: we should not worry about this paradox, it is to be expected. All other creations we know have the same paradox. Don't wave it away by saying that the 6 days are not real, or only symbolic, they can be real. This paradox is not a contradiction. So I am happy with BioLogos, because I think that our christian belief can be defended better if we show that it is in harmony with science, than when we say that it contradicts science, but the harmony can be even greater if we show that the 6 days of the creation can be real, but even then they are not a contradiction with scientific results.
Greetings from The Netherlands.

[@faithtruth8036]

Rowling did not create anything she just made up an none existent character. If you are only using an analogy it is a poor one at best. christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c011.html

[@stephencastro4723]

There are no contradictions. Science and theology discusses things in different perspectives.

[@Diamondraw4Real]

@@faithtruth8036 the analogy was fun reading. Why is it poor?

[@Diamondraw4Real]

Heaven with angels (and in Islam Iblees) was created before Earth. There was probably light in heaven. Can you imagine ppl in heaven sitting in the dark? No we always imagine it basking in Allah's/God's glory. We believe Adam and Eve lived in heaven and that they had everything they needed. There was likely no revolution of night and day. So no need for a sun and moon in heaven. God knows best.

[@FredZwarts]

@@faithtruth8036 You do not explain why the analogy would be poor. Your reference does not contradict what I said. Even if the 6 days of creation are taken literally, there is no reason in the text to assume that those days are part of the history of the earth. Just like the seven years of Rowling can be taken literally, but they cannot be found in the history of Harry Potter. Although I have respect for professor Barr, apparently he does not know all scholars, because the first sentence in his citation is not true. Read e.g. "The lost world of Genesis 1", by professor Walton, a Christian expert in Hebrew and old cultures, who, from the text itself, concludes that there is no contradiction between the text and scientific results. play.google.com/store/books/details/John_H_Walton_The_Lost_World_of_Genesis_One?id=6qZLAz3TckgC

[@Ozzyman200]

Tragic that you do still get creationists. They insist they know science better than the scientists, but they run for the hills when they're challenged for evidence. They're victims of the creationists that taught them, and sadly pass it on without questioning it.

[@countryem12]

I'm a Christian creationist. I don't run for the hills when pressed for evidence--I use the Bible. I point to God. And I don't blindly take what's given to me, study it with glazed eyes, mindlessly agree that it's true, and then blindly pass it on, either--I read the Bible for myself. I study. I research. I take God at His word.
...And, on a contrary note, people may say God's not real, He's not alive, He doesn't exist... but even if all that were true and I would be "living a lie", so to speak... then this is the best lie I have ever lived. :) With God, I have hope. I have a bright future to look forward to; my best days are ahead of me. I am held and loved and comforted. So even if He weren't real, I would live, with radiant hope, just like He was. :)
God bless.

[@Bunny-ns5ni]

@@countryem12 It's mans interpretation of "gods word". If you look to the bible for evidence, you'll find there's no evidence. Yes, you do run for the hills, because it's an indefensible belief, with no support. All testable claims within it have been challenged and disproven. Why would you want to believe such a useless, meaningless, stone age lie?

[@piscator_M1-17]

Evolutionary Creationism dose not contradict the plain reading of the Bible. The way we interpret the Bible dose. I have an old way of interpretation that will fix this dilemma and will reconstruct the bridge between Scripture and Science. Please help.

[@GODandGODDESS]

In EXODUS 20:11, THE LORD GOD revealed that the 6 Creation days are Long, Ongoing, Overlapping days. Biblical Creation is in the image of the universe. Evolution is not referenced in GENESIS 2:7, GENESIS 2:19 or GENESIS 2:22. However, environment-driven evolution is referenced in GENESIS chapter 1.
.

[@kieran296]

Im intrigued how can you be a "Christian Atheist" Like what Lol?

[@xbbt7770]

Yeah, this guy's a troll if ever I saw one.

[@shakerliciouslaw2404]

I think a Christian Atheist is a person who professes the Christian faith but act as though he/she does not believe it. It's an oxymoron.

[@faithtruth8036]

Evolution is not science. Please don't confuse the two.

[@LowahHu]

that is a welcome platform to say your thoughts.

[@faithtruth8036]

No, the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds. Jesus was speaking proverbially. That is, he wasn't making a statement of absolute fact but using a proverbial style of communication.
There are different kinds of mustard trees in Israel and the mustard seed was the smallest of all the seeds known there and used by those in Israel. Also, notice that Jesus says that when it is full grown it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree so that the birds nest in it. There were many gardens in Israel with many types of plants, many of which were larger than the mustard plant. The olive tree for example, can grow to 20 feet or more. The mustard tree known as Salvadora persica has extremely small seeds and grows into a small bush. Brassica nigra is a mustard plant that grows to about 8 to 10 feet when mature and is probably the one Jesus was using for his illustration. Jesus would have known that it wasn't the largest of garden plants because of the prevalence of larger plants. Therefore, he was not making a botanical statement of fact. Instead, he was drawing attention to the comparison of the "smallest" to the "largest" and using it to illustrate how the Kingdom of heaven will expand in the world from a very small beginning to a huge presence.

[@godzillajohn3415]

DO YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?
Then here is an important question for you. Before we get to the question, let’s look at two important definitions.
1. According to Science Daily, the Scientific Method is based on “the collection of data through observation and experimentation...”
2. Darwinian evolution is based on a change from one “kind” (or as Charles Darwin called it, “family”) to another. For example, there is a feline kind (cats and tigers), canine kind (wolves and dogs), humankind (human beings), etc.
So here’s the question: Can you name any observable evidence for Darwinian evolution that meets the requirement of the Scientific Method? Something that can be observed directly here and now, that doesn't require some element of blind faith? Perhaps you are thinking of “Darwin’s finches,” with different size beaks that developed over time. But that’s not molecules-to-man evolution; that’s simply what’s called natural selection, or adaptation, as different species of finches developed- depending on which combination of existing genetic information was most suitable in particular environments. Such adaptation happens everywhere in nature, but it’s always within the limits set by the genetic code, based on the information it already contains. Darwin’s finches remain as finches; there’s been no change of kind.
Perhaps you would point to antibiotic resistance in bacteria as evidence of evolutionary changes. But such changes typically are the result of genetic loss, not the gain that is needed for the evolutionary process. Whether in birds or bacteria, or any other life form, there’s no instance of brand new genetic information being added into the genetic code, which is required for molecules-to-man evolution to occur.
Then there are fossils. You may line them up according to similarities and claim that they prove common descent, but that interpretation falls outside the realm of observational science. Because you cannot directly “observe” something that happened in the past, it requires a measure of faith. Darwinian evolution doesn't pass the test for the Scientific Method-it is unobservable. Darwinian evolution is therefore not scientific. If you find that hard to believe, go to EvolutionVsGod.com and watch evolutionary scientists at USC and UCLA as they were unable to provide answers to this same question. Their evolutionary belief ultimately rests on nothing but blind faith. It can’t be confirmed by observational science. Despite knowing this, many still cling to the idea of evolution-for reasons which we will look at shortly. The biblical creation model, on the other hand, can be confirmed by observational science. You can observe every animal bringing forth after its own kind (as it says in the book of Genesis). Despite the tremendous variety God programmed into their DNA, enabling creatures to become adapted to their environments, dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats, etc. Nothing changes kinds throughout the 1.4 million different species of animals, birds, insects, and fish. That is observable both in the fossil record and in the living world today. Certain similarities we observe in fossils of different kinds are actually evidence of a common Creator, who made the world and everything in it, just as the book of Genesis says.
The purpose of telling you these things is to bring up two important points: First, if naturalistic evolution is true and there’s no God, then we are all just animals with no moral responsibility. There’s no ultimate morality other than what society says is right and wrong. That means pornography is okay, as are fornication, lust, adultery, and homosexual behavior. Anything goes-as long as society okays it. That’s good news for red-blooded human beings with raging hormones. This is really a strong incentive for clinging to belief in evolution, wanting it to be true.
Second, and more importantly, if molecules-to-man evolution is false and the Bible is right about our Creator, then we aren't just animals with primal instincts. We are human beings, made in the image of God, with a unique sense of justice and a God-given knowledge of right and wrong (Romans 2:15). If the Bible is right, then Heaven and Hell exist . . . and it’s possible to experience the free gift of everlasting life with our Creator.
Deep down, we all know intuitively that God exists, because it’s scientifically impossible for the universe to create itself and because God has made His existence known to us (Romans 1:19,20). If we want to live forever with our amazing Creator (and who in his right mind doesn't?), we have to somehow connect with Him-the Source of all life. The problem is that we are separated from Him by our sins. Let’s see if we have sinned, by looking briefly at the Ten Commandments (God’s moral Law). Have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, or used God’s name in vain? Jesus said, “Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” If you have done these things, God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart, and the Bible warns that one day God will punish you in a terrible place called Hell. But God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9). God, who is “rich in mercy,” sent His Son, Jesus, to suffer and die on the cross in the place of guilty sinners. Sinners broke God’s Law, but Jesus paid their fine. That means God can legally commute our death sentence: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Then Jesus rose from the dead, defeating death. Today, repent and place your trust in Jesus, and God will grant you eternal life.

[@markborder906]

Godzilla John
You seem to have wasted a lot of time in typing here. ‘ Do I believe in evolution? No. I accept evolution, no belief necessary.
First definition. I’m ok with this but would reserve the right to make a future comment depending on your elaboration of your second definition.
Second definition. This is where you started to waste time typing beyond this. Until you supply a definition for your word “kinds” no discussion is possible. Please note, “kinds” needs a definition not a list of examples.

[@faithtruth8036]

@@markborder906No, the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds. Jesus was speaking proverbially. That is, he wasn't making a statement of absolute fact but using a proverbial style of communication.
There are different kinds of mustard trees in Israel and the mustard seed was the smallest of all the seeds known there and used by those in Israel. Also, notice that Jesus says that when it is full grown it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree so that the birds nest in it. There were many gardens in Israel with many types of plants, many of which were larger than the mustard plant. The olive tree for example, can grow to 20 feet or more. The mustard tree known as Salvadora persica has extremely small seeds and grows into a small bush. Brassica nigra is a mustard plant that grows to about 8 to 10 feet when mature and is probably the one Jesus was using for his illustration. Jesus would have known that it wasn't the largest of garden plants because of the prevalence of larger plants. Therefore, he was not making a botanical statement of fact. Instead, he was drawing attention to the comparison of the "smallest" to the "largest" and using it to illustrate how the Kingdom of heaven will expand in the world from a very small beginning to a huge presence.

[@markborder906]

Faith Truth
Why have you repeated the same irrelevant comment under a number of threads?

[@faithtruth8036]

Good

[@markborder906]

Faith Truth
I’ll assume inebriation

[@tarcal87]

"the creation is remarkably tuned for our discovery" - what?
It's like a desperate attempt...
1) Evolution is a fact
2) In defending the bible, religious people have kept trying to find something in the book that supports reality throughout history.
3) Finally they (or some, like this vid) give in and admit that the bible says nothing about it
4) conclusion: STILL, GOD DID IT!
("There we find amazing evidence about the diversity of life on Earth")
What kind of reasoning is that?
I just can't wrap my head around how fallible people are. This book is so vague about anything - any person can come up with stuff like that - and yet so many believe this is the word of a god... the vid even points out at 1:15 how it makes no sense, as just one tiny example.
I don't even get it. Why can't people move on and forget about these old stories? Why would anyone read such random, vague thoughts at all?
IF someone wants to feel there is a god, why not do it in private, staying neutral among the many different religions that contradict each other.
without stories like a "jesus", "moses" etc, which is very specific to a single religion.
The fact that there are so many religions, stories, etc is just ridiculous.
I'm an atheist but sometimes I want to feel there is a god. Yet I would not even think about following some religion that has some very specific, made-up opinions about everything.
Among so many religions, obviously they can't all be right. At most, only one can be right, or none. Each religion thinks they are the right one, and the follower nutjobs are sooo convinced that they are sooo right. Just ridiculous, childish really. If you want to feel you are not alone and need support (e.g a god figure), just believe it in your heart, don't follow silly stories, scriptures etc etc.
Eh I went on a tangent, I'm just tired of all this. I was hoping to see interesting comments here but all I see is even more quotes from random bible passages and characters. I think there should be a mental illness category specifically for those types of delusional people

[@ScriptureClips]

Theres plenty of videos with biblical arguments for things like God or creation( I personally like William lane craig, John lennox, or Frank Turek )
this I think is like a intro video for biologos.
But I caught a thought in the ramble section above that is a good starting point.
You said "I'm an atheist but sometimes I want to feel there is a god."
That's a good honest statement, that means youre open to knowing
and that's the key.
1) Evolution is a fact
thats debatable
2) In defending the bible, religious people have kept trying to find something in the book that supports reality throughout history.
thats either untrue, dishonest, or misinformed not sure which in your case.
3) Finally they (or some, like this vid) give in and admit that the bible says nothing about it
about evolution orrr...?
4) conclusion: STILL, GOD DID IT!
("There we find amazing evidence about the diversity of life on Earth")
What kind of reasoning is that?
I can't really argue with that conclusion.

[@tarcal87]

telltheworldtheword
1) No, evolution *is* a fact - to science, scientific theories are counted as facts - it cannot get better than that - fully backed up by different line of evidence. Stop denying it.
2) Why untrue, dishonest or misinformed? Do you rule out the possibility that you have not read all the material available out there that discusses the history of religion? _You_ could be misinformed.
3) Well, nothing about evolution for instance, yeah. It was said in this video remember.
4) Yeah why can't you argue with that conclusion?
Maybe it wasn't clear what I meant... "Still, god did it" is basically how this video ended. My points 3 and 4 is about the guy and the end talking about how the bible doesn't address science, yet ends the video with a "conclusion" that contradicts what he just said - namely that god exists anyway. Makes no sense.
In other words, let's say a judge finds no clues and evidence for a murder and still thinks there was a murderer. No, it doesn't work like that. You need to follow what your observation leads to. If the bible doesn't address science, why attribute it to a god anyway!? THAT's what I mean by desperation. "It doesn't look like he did it - but he did it anyway!"

[@ScriptureClips]

Evolution is accepted as it is "THE ONLY" naturalistic explanation (despite contrary evidences, and lack of observable evidence), which is why it's accepted, because science only studies natural phenomenon.
a better example would be a judge that happens by a crime scene but attempts to prove no crime happened.

[@xbbt7770]

LOL! Evolution is NOT fact. Even the staunchest evolutionary researcher will tell you this.

[@Bunny-ns5ni]

As a practicing evolutionary biologist, some of the repliers don't understand evolution, and it's evident by their claims that it's wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory of biodiversity, and IS fact. There are mountains of evidence supporting it, so much so, that it's the most well supported theory ever proposed, even stronger than the theory of gravity! You either accept the evolution, or you're wrong. Simple as that.

[@5to22a]

Wasn't the mustard seed the smallest KOSHER seed in use by the Jews of Jesus' day? Don't think that's the best example to use.

[@5to22a]

Fair enough, I agreed with the message but wasn't so sure about that example. Thank you for the response.

[@luisrverasuarez6611]

perhaps

[@faithtruth8036]

No, the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds. Jesus was speaking proverbially. That is, he wasn't making a statement of absolute fact but using a proverbial style of communication.
There are different kinds of mustard trees in Israel and the mustard seed was the smallest of all the seeds known there and used by those in Israel. Also, notice that Jesus says that when it is full grown it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree so that the birds nest in it. There were many gardens in Israel with many types of plants, many of which were larger than the mustard plant. The olive tree for example, can grow to 20 feet or more. The mustard tree known as Salvadora persica has extremely small seeds and grows into a small bush. Brassica nigra is a mustard plant that grows to about 8 to 10 feet when mature and is probably the one Jesus was using for his illustration. Jesus would have known that it wasn't the largest of garden plants because of the prevalence of larger plants. Therefore, he was not making a botanical statement of fact. Instead, he was drawing attention to the comparison of the "smallest" to the "largest" and using it to illustrate how the Kingdom of heaven will expand in the world from a very small beginning to a huge presence.

[@tzgardner]

The mustard seed is the smallest seed that grows into a tree. The point in this context was to show how something very small can grow into something giant.

[@MrFossil367ab45gfyth]

The Bible should be for interpretation. People should choose how or what to believe or perceive stories and texts. I believe that God made the universe through the Big Bang and life on Earth "and possibly other worlds" through evolution.

[@Incinerate1212]

This obviously contradicts scripture. When you have not only genesis talking nonsense of creation in 6 days but also follow up confirmation from different bible passages confirming that it was infact 6 literal days you guys start to look like fools who are desperately trying to fit your own cognitive dissonance into a christian worldview .
Exodus 20:9-11New International Version (NIV)
9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
As you can see, not only genesis spoke of a literal 6 day creation with a 7th day of rest but this exodus passage confirms that it was meant to be taken literally. That was how it was initially understood by the ancients.
If you going to say that the early old testament writers were just a bunch of primates writing down nonsense that had nothing to do with the word of god, then quite frankly I see no reason to value the bible anymore than any man made book of fiction.

[@jammapcb]

to add to that a system defining a day is far older than any genesis account... so where did they get the system from? egyptians! ... coincidence?... considering they are next door neighbours lol
solar and lunar measurements are far older than any bible! thus its BS or taking or at least influenced by much older religions or wild claims!

[@OldDaddyDarkness]

The Bible was written by prophets, men inspired by God to speak on his behalf. If one is to understand the scriptures, one needs prophets to understand them. Otherwise it's all conjecture. God has always used prophets to speak to his people and to help them understand his words. He treats the current generation no differently.

[@TommySOM]

The earth is the land not the planet. The pillars are mantle plumes . google images of mantle plumes

[@NephilimFree]

YES. ABUNDANTLY.

[@yeehaw6267]

How so?

[@cedricburkhart3738]

Yeah but why beleve the Bible. Doesn't Genesis at least report to be a a history of the world?

[@mikeprew]

The purpose of Genesis 1 is to function as a polemic indicating God's power. It also serves to show how the sun and the moon are nothing more than created beings: this serves as a theological statement to the rest of the ancient world. Considering the cultural context, Genesis 1's purpose was to convey when God turned chaos into order rather than a material creation account. I suggest you read InspiringPhilosophy's two videos about Genesis 1. It is very detailed and speaks further about this stuff.

[@cedricburkhart3738]

@@mikeprew Are you saying it does not report to be a historical account?

[@mikeprew]

@@cedricburkhart3738 I believe that Adam and Eve are real historical people, but I do not believe that they are the first two human beings. I do not think the verse necessarily conveys that either. In Genesis 1, God sets up the universe as His cosmic temple, and elects the first priest and priestess of creation in Genesis 2.

[@Bunny-ns5ni]

Anything can happen in fairytales, because god. The religious aren't supposed to question their beliefs, they're supposed to blindly follow. Religion always has been, and always will be dishonest.

[@mikeprew]

"The religious aren't supposed to question their beliefs". I disagree with this statement. Christians recognize the value in questioning their beliefs, and understand that there needs to be evidence for their beliefs. One of the most evidential proofs of the truth of Christianity is the plentiful historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

[@Bunny-ns5ni]

@@mikeprew Where is that evidence? Many religious individuals keep claiming that there's evidence of Jesus' resurrection, but never show any of it. It's almost as if there isn't any. 🤔
Christians definitely don't question their beliefs. If they did, they wouldn't be religious anymore. It's just blind acceptance. You brought "evidence" into this, but religion only goes off of faith, which by definition, is believing what cannot verifiably be true. None of what you added makes sense if you think about it.

[@mikeprew]

@@Bunny-ns5ni I have no issue showing you the plentiful evidence for Christ's resurrection. InspiringPhilosophy made a good video about it, which I can link. I could also just list points here if you'd rather have me do that.

[@Bunny-ns5ni]

@@mikeprew I'm open to seeing it

[@mikeprew]

@@Bunny-ns5ni
Here are the main reasons:
- a historical empty tomb
- independent appearances of Jesus after His death
- women discovering the empty tomb
- immediate proclamation of the gospel
- voluntary suffering by the early apostles
- enemy conversions ( Paul and Jesus' brother James)
- shameful gospel message
If you want me to go into more detail about any of these points / how they are historically backed up / how they point to a historical resurrection I have no issue with doing so.

[@NephilimFree]

The passages you cite are truth. You are ignorant about them. For example the words "pillars of the earth" do not refer to anything geological. They are a metaphor for the children of God.

[@blorkpovud1576]

"Metaphor for the children of god".
So much for plain reading!

[@NephilimFree]

@@blorkpovud1576 Playing a game with the fact that the Bible contains historical narrative, parables, and allegories does not make you right. It makes you look silly for trying to make a point without any information because you can't do it.

[@bennyboo67]

there are no days before earth and sun were created. think about it.

[@galaxyspirals9595]

Ben Hager Every planet counts his days different, think about that. O_O

[@bennyboo67]

so you are implying that "god" is an ET

[@micahhenley589]

The earth was created on day 1. The sun was created on day 4 according to the bible(God's word).

[@mikeytobago]

Genesis tells of a re-creation of an original creation

[@faithtruth8036]

@@mikeytobago If that is the gap theory you are talking about it was an invention to try to reconcile the bible with Millions of years but no one in Jesus day had heard of it.

[@xbbt7770]

Yes, an evolutionary creation does contradict what God clearly said.
Words such as "First day" and "the evening and the morning were the second day" should leave you in absolutely no doubt of the timescale. The only argument I have had in retort to this is "Well maybe the people were illiterate so God used days symbolically.", but again, I point to my second quotation reinforcing that they were actual days.
If that's not enough, how about this afterthought: If the seventh "day" was a billion years, which, going by theistic evolution it was, then how long is the sabbath day - or should I say, sabbath billion years? And if we're in the sabbath billion years, then I hope for your conscious' sake that you haven't worked!
And if you are a subscriber of theistic evolution, you'll still be shunned by the ungodly world because you're putting fish and birds on the same evolutionary timeframe, claiming them to be two billion years old.

[@jaredyoung5353]

Friend we still in the 7th Day. That’s God rest See The book of Hebrews.
Look I was very much a supporter of YEC for 10+ years. I Turned 30 and wanted to really understand the Bible...after a 2 year of serious study into the Bible and its original context I’ve come out the other side loving what I learned. Please read “In the Beginning we miss understood “ of “Lost world of Genesis”. My fav is Michael Heiser who is one of the top ANE experts and a serious Christians.
The Bible is a theological book not a science book. Enjoy the Journey.

[@faithtruth8036]

@@jaredyoung5353For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.as God did from his
This is in the past tense Referring to the seventh day

[@faithtruth8036]

1 Samuel 2: 8 He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; he seats them with princes and has them inherit a throne of honour. "For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's; on them he has set the world. He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap. He seats them among princes and bestows on them a throne of honor. For the foundations of the earth are the LORD’s, and upon them He has set the world.He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the trash heap. He seats them with noblemen and gives them a throne of honor. For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's; he has set the world on them.He lifts the weak from the dust; he raises the poor from the ash heap to seat them with princes and to bestow on them an honored position. The foundations of the earth belong to the LORD, and he has placed the world on them. Theses are from several different translations and show that the word pillars translated in the king James can be better translated foundations.

[@justinrudolph100]

So the final verdict is: Yea! You can shoehorn God into evolution. But there lies the second question. Why the fuck are you trying to force your belief of a devine, omnipotent being (where there is no scientific evidence for) into evolutionary theory (for which there is a mountain of evidence). God is not necessary, nor is he supported by evidence, and thus has no place in evolution.

[@thethinkingapeman5648]

Point taken. But at least this group is doing good work educating Christians on the facts of evolution and science. I'd much prefer educated theists, who accept science, than willfully ignorant theists who try to drag us back to the stone-age.

[@dionsanchez6097]

Evolution cannot explain the origin of the 1st life: a life that has the power of life in and of itself. Sorry, but you must posit something existing that is eternal before you can have any other life. Hence, either the universe is eternal (no scientific fact has shown that to be the case) or you have a being that exists outside the universe (s) that is eternal.

[@jaredyoung5353]

Sir evolution is a mechanism. There is no cosmic reason WHY we have to have it.
It’s an amazing system like capitalism that ends with the best companies giving us the best products.

[@blorkpovud1576]

I don't think an a theist who accepts evolution necessarily thinks god works on it.
Just that evolution itself doesn't necessarily disprove one either.
At least this is how I'd think if I were a theist. God could exist, but not necessarily have to tinker with life on Earth during its development.

[@Bunny-ns5ni]

@@dionsanchez6097 you obviously don't know what evolution is if you say "evolution cannot explain the origin of the 1st life". Evolution is a theory of BIODIVERSITY, not the ORIGIN of life! This is such a simple premise, yet you couldn't grasp that. How sad.

[@bujinkanatori]

Ok, the cognitive dissonance and rationalization here is amazing!
Guys just listed a lot of evidence debunking the bible and just sweeps it aside as irrelevant.
And so it is, evidence is always irrelevant to faith.
Sad but true.

[@faithtruth8036]

Stories debunking the bible facts always agree with it. That is way atheist ua-cam.com/video/m5EjA-JNiVk/v-deo.html