That's my experience of UK Christians (of which I used to be one, until I came to my senses) as well. I know of only a couple of people who think the Bible is a literal truth.

I always used to love "debating" this point with them as it is a completely indefensible point of view.

I think you can be a Christian, and believe in the Christian God, Jesus etc but can be sceptical of the writings in the bible as they were just written by people.

I'd say it's more appropriate to say that evangelical Christians believe the bible is the inspired word of God. Anyone can call themselves a Christian and pour whatever meaning into the word they want, but when I speak of evangelical Christianity, I am referring to those who would view the bible as the only infallible revelation given to us by God.

As far as the biblical interpretation, believing in an infallible book doesn't mean we take every work as wooden literal. Biblical scholars (and laymen as well) have the responsibility of taking into account many factors about a passage before determining it's meaning. One key part of this (though not the only factor) is the form of literature being employed. The psalms are poetry, the parables are illustrations (designed BTW, to make things less clear, not more so). There are several passages that are still debated among evangelical, though the main concepts (such as salvation by grace, not works) are very clearly stated. I must underscore the point, however, that biblical interpretation is not a matter of picking up the bible and saying "this is what these words seem to mean to me," because that very quickly gets us down the road of reading whatever we want into the scriptures and then using it to against other people (which of course, happens every day). There are guidelines for approaching the scripture, and when people try to come at the text in isolation without respect to the rest of the bible, the form of literature being employed, the audience to whom the book was written, or a host of other considerations, horrible misunderstandings can result.

That being said, what about Genesis? Well, what I am about to say should not be taken as mainline evangelical Christianity, (I might even get branded liberal) but I think it's difficult to say. Did God create everything? Yes, absolutely. Did he do it in seven days? It's difficult to tell, even biblical scholars debate this point. Is it a parable? No, I don't think so. Does it preclude evolution? No, well not without a bit of theology first. I'll explain:

Since there is some debate (at least in my mind) over the time periods which the creation occurred in Genesis, could God have used evolution to form humans "from the dust"? From only that, I'd say sure. The larger problem with evolution (from a theological standpoint) is that we are talking about the weak dying simply because they are weak (something not in God's nature as it has been revealed to us), before Adam sinned, and therefore before the fall. Yet before the fall, the bible teaches the world was a perfect paradise, exactly as God would have it, not the corrupted version we live in today.

So this is the big theological problem with evolution: it doesn't seem to be in God's nature. However, (and this is where my fellow evangelicals might cringe) I do believe that here we have a good bit of logic, but it only takes one misunderstanding to have missed the point completely. Certainly the evidence I was given for evolution in school was bad science, ("we've proven species adapt, therefore species grow into other species"), but I'm not precluding the possibility, given better science. We are always growing and learning, and perhaps some of our theology is wrong, though it is hard for me to see how it could be.

Still, in the end evolution does not prove that we appeared on the scene by random chance, though I suppose that case has been tried before. However, saying that men eveloved from apes is still a long way off from saying inanimate "clay" (or something else) got the "spark of life". Somewhere along the line, life had to happen, and evolution (so far as I can tell) can't explain that away. Even then, evolution doesn't explain how the matter got here in the first place.

So the stance I take is that I don't know when it comes to these things. As of now I don't believe in evolution because the evidence I've been given isn't good enough and my theology says "no." However, I'll admit I haven't studied the real science behind evolution at all (as opposed the what I received in school, which wasn't real science), so I have to admit ignorance.

But the bottom line is this: I believe the bible is divinely inspired. Predictions that have come true both about Jesus and other events in the middle east attest to this. Archeology and history time and time again have backed up the bibles historical accounts, even when historians thought the bible was off base. I also believe that science is usefull and, in fact, something given to us by God. When the two seem to contradict I have to be patient and check my understanding of both, realizing that answerers might not be immediately obvious with our present knowledge. However, I don't believe the Genesis account should be the stumbling block to faith: it is one mystery in the bible where there are many things clear to us. The clear things tell us that there is a Savior who died to save us from sin. If I focus my attention on origins and never get to the most important aspect of faith, then I have done those who are still seeking the truth of Jesus a grave disservice.

Adam and Eve had many children, and yes, they married their brothers and sisters. Not necessarily a bad thing at the time, because the DNA was pretty much pure, and the genetic problems with intermarrying wouldn't surface.

Adam and Eve had many children, and yes, they married their brothers and sisters. Not necessarily a bad thing at the time, because the DNA was pretty much pure, and the genetic problems with intermarrying wouldn't surface.

So, uh, where did the impurities come from? If you believe in DNA but also believe in Adam and Eve, who are our other ancestors?

Peter

Ever heard of the second law of thermodynamics? Everything is moving to an increasing state of disorder. Things like harmful mutations, ingesting toxic substances, etc can have effects on the DNA...

Ever heard of the second law of thermodynamics? Everything is moving to an increasing state of disorder. Things like harmful mutations, ingesting toxic substances, etc can have effects on the DNA...

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the second law of thermodynamics go in direct contrast with the theory of evolution? And if that's the case, how can you have a scientific theory that goes against a scientific law?

Wrong actually. While older dating methods did have some flaws, and opened the door to "scientific non-proof" for all the creationism people, this newer one dosen't have such flaws. Isochron Dating is the proper term, and when someone from the Institue for Creation Research used it, they found some interesting results. They seem to think the Grand Canyon age issue debunks Isochron Dating, but they don't give any reason for this beyond the fact that the new data even puzzled scientists. My only idea is that since most of them believe the Earth is only thousands of years old, the 1.07 billion figure dosen't sit well with them.

Interesting. I'm going to have to read up on this. I like knowing as much as I can about both sides of an issue. Usually somewhere in the middle you can find the truth But what about the moon? If the earth and the moon are as old as we're to believe, there should of been a lot of space dust on the surface. But there were only a couple of inches.

I will admit even scientists have had a hard time with the Grand Canyon, but the dating method its self seems reliable

That's easy. Paul Bunyan made it when threw his axe into the ground

Ever heard of the second law of thermodynamics? Everything is moving to an increasing state of disorder. Things like harmful mutations, ingesting toxic substances, etc can have effects on the DNA...

So how long ago do DNA-plus-creationists suspect Adam and Eve lived? I believe the bible-literalists' figure, from adding up all the begats, is about 6,000 years. It seems unlikely that enough chance mutations to explain the colossal variance in the human genotype, could happen in so few generations.

Incidentally, this has nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics.

Peter

Ever heard of the second law of thermodynamics?

This is in the FAQ. Also here.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the second law of thermodynamics go in direct contrast with the theory of evolution? And if that's the case, how can you have a scientific theory that goes against a scientific law?

Surely there's a FAQ out there somewhere with this sort of stuff in, but, for the record, the second law of thermodynamics says that in a closed system, entropy (disorder) tends to increase. Life on earth is not a closed system, it has a continuous (vast!) energy feed from the sun. If we take the whole solar system, then that's (for all intents and purposes) a closed system. Come back when the sun has exhausted its finite amount of fusionable hydrogen, the planets have been mined for all their finite supply of fuels, and vulcanism caused by the finite amount of radioactive material in planets' cores has died away, and then see how much evolution you can find going on.

Very large closed systems can take very large amounts of time to reach highly unordered states. There is no breach of the second law of thermodynamics here, move along.

Peter

Well, *some* or even *many* Christians might believe that everything in the Bible is fact, but I can point out at least *one* counter-example of a Christian that *doesn't* think everything in the Bible is fact, let alone necessarily "inspired". Why?

Well, that's like saying I'm a vegan except those times when I really want to eat steak. The whole idea of picking and choosing what you believe in the Bible is ludicrous to me. You either believe in it or you don't.

a) Jesus taught in parables, right? I.e. stories. The stories weren't about fact, but were used as illustrative purposes to get a point across. If Jesus can do it, then why can't the people that wrote the Bible, inspired or not?

Cause the Bible clearly states that those are stories, and the rest is presented as fact.

No matter how inspired a writer might be, do you think many people would really, honestly, truly understand if he went off about the big bang and primordial soup and micro-organisms and carbon based life-forms and DNA and evolution, supposing that that's what really happened?

Well inspired means that God literally came down and wrote the books of the Bible through man. And if God can't explain it, who can?

c) The content of the Bible has been under the control of people who's aims have been less Godly than Worldly.

Ah, and there is the problem with the Bible (and religion) to begin with. I agree with you completely about this. The original manuscripts don't contain any of the misogynicist tone that you'd find in the King James Version. Or the blatant hatred of homosexuals either. My whole problem with religion is that it was established in a time where having a government was impossible. Religion came up to help control people without the presence of a government. Then, when governments came along, they found with what ease they could control people using religion as a tool, bending it to their will. The best example of this is the medievil times. They had it worked out perfectly. Keep the word of God in another language, so the common man can't read it for himself. He had to go to a priest to be told what he was supposed to do.

The whole idea of picking and choosing what you believe in the Bible is ludicrous to me. You either believe in it or you don't.

Why can't you? The bible is nothing more than a bunch of short stories in a compendium. Some of them are factual, some of them are fictional, some of them are op-ed, some of them are straight historical documents.

Well, that's like saying I'm a vegan except those times when I really want to eat steak. The whole idea of picking and choosing what you believe in the Bible is ludicrous to me. You either believe in it or you don't.

Only because you personally have decided to believe it all... do you find the notion of a document, some of which is true, some of which isn't, "ludicrous" in other walks of life?

Peter

Why can't you? The bible is nothing more than a bunch of short stories in a compendium. Some of them are factual, some of them are fictional, some of them are op-ed, some of them are straight historical documents.

The short answer is that the bible serves little purpose if you pick and choose what you want out of it. If we seek to understand God and how he relates to humans through the bible, and yet reject the things we don't like or can't understand, this leaves us back at the same place we started. We've enfourced our ideas onto the bible; why then read the bible at all if we're simply going to come away with our own ideas? It might be read for the purposes of understanding the people who wrote it or the historical context in which it was written, but if not taken as a whole, the bible can tell us little about God.

This is in the FAQ. Also here.

Ok, from that article.

Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order.

I think getting from a goo of cells to what we are now is alot more complicated than a sand dune. Evolution requires just as much faith as creationism.

Did he do it in seven days? It's difficult to tell, even biblical scholars debate this point.

Of course He didn't. Those first few passages of the bible are rife with logical impossibilities (like how do day and night exist without the Sun, for an obvious example).

I always wonder how people can assume all of the Bible can be true when so much of it contradicts itself. Obviously, some of it must be false.

You may be interested in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

Why can't you? The bible is nothing more than a bunch of short stories in a compendium. Some of them are factual, some of them are fictional, some of them are op-ed, some of them are straight historical documents.

Cause it would defeat the purpose of believing in the Bible to begin with. "Hey, I don't like that part in there where it says I can't kill, so I'm just going to ignore it." According to your logic, he would still be a Christian and he could go around killing people. It even states so in the Bible "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. " Deut. 4:2

I think getting from a goo of cells to what we are now is alot more complicated than a sand dune.

Yes. That's why natural processes take a few weeks or months to make a sand dune (and dunelike formations in powdery snow can take hours) whereas evolution takes about a billion times longer. If our poor ape brains were better equipped for visualising "a billion times longer" then there'd be less scepticism about this sort of stuff.

And if you ask me, zero to a goo of cells is the hard bit; goo to us sounds easy by comparison.

Peter

It even states so in the Bible "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. " Deut. 4:2

Deuteronomy? So that dates from before they added the New Testament to it, then?

Peter

Only because you personally have decided to believe it all... do you find the notion of a document, some of which is true, some of which isn't, "ludicrous" in other walks of life?

Only if it requires me to devote my intire life to it's teachings. And requires me to believe it fully. And for the record, I'm not Christian. The glaring flaws in the Bible would make it hard for me to devote my life to it. I'm just debating what the definition of a true Christian is.

Hey, I don't like that part in there where it says I can't kill, so I'm just going to ignore it.

Ah, so you choose Exodus 20:13 to believe in: ``Thou shalt not kill''.

Fair enough.

What about Exodus 32:27: ``Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side ... and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor'', or Numbers 15:35: ``And the Lord said unto Moses, The man [who was found picking up sticks on the sabbath] shall be surely put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones'', or 1 Samuel 15:12-13: ``Thus saith the Lord of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare him not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.''

So which part do you believe in? The part that says not to kill or the part that tells you to kill me because I work on Sunday?

Ok, "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." 1 Thess. 2:13 Or this verse kind of hits the nail on the head. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:3 If your a Christian, there's a stong argument on why you can't believe in evolution.

Nothin' like scripture out of context to start the morning off, eh Bitt? I would expect a little more out of you.

I always wonder how people can assume all of the Bible can be true when so much of it contradicts itself. Obviously, some of it must be false.

If there are such contradictions. I breifly checked out that link (because I'm at work and can't go through entire web sites) and didn't see anything new, or contradicting. I'll admit there are "problems" that sometimes are difficult to answer, but the majority of "contradictions" that I ever hear about are due to violating one of the rules I cited above of biblical interpretation (context, audience, literary style, etc.)

I'll admit that sometimes there are questions I cannot answer; however out of my experience with the trustworthiness of the bible I can assume there are answers, even if I do not know them.

Sure it's out of context. But in one, it says don't kill. In the other it says kill. There needn't be any context. If you can show me how one doesn't contradict the other, I'd be happy to hear it.

So which part do you believe in? The part that says not to kill or the part that tells you to kill me because I work on Sunday?

Again, I don't believe it, just because of contradictions like that. The God of Old Testament was a jealous and spiteful God, and not one that I would want to say I believe in. I'm just trying to show that if you say you are a Christian, you can't pick and choose the Bible, cause if you do there's no point to being a Christian at all. I wish people would say, "You know what, I'm not a Christian. I just believe that I should live my life the best that I can, and help someone out if I get the chance." Why do you have to be associated with a religion to do that?

Edit: For the record, this message board is one of my favorite places to discuss anything on the web

So you're just arguing the semantics of something you don't believe in? That seems like a waste of time.

Why do you have to be associated with a religion to do that?

No reason, and good point.

And if you ask me, zero to a goo of cells is the hard bit; goo to us sounds easy by comparison.

I completely agree, and I think this is the real Intelligent Design question, not evolution.

I am not a theologian, but one plausable explanation would be that the commandment is against murder, not against capital punishment or warfare. Then again, to be fair, I haven't studied the issue thoroughly either.

Maybe the Rev. will comment...

Ok, [...New Testament readings...]

That's not quite what I was getting at: that reading you provided (if you interpret it correctly) says that we can't accept the New Testament as, er, gospel, without refusing to accept Deuteronomy 4:2 as gospel. So you've got to pick-and-choose either way.

Peter