Creationism vs. Evolution: "...after its own kind"

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

It could mean one of many things. One of the things it could possibly mean is a reference to micro vs macro evolution.

Undoubtedly, God created life in stages, most of which, if not all, pre-dates mankind. The question revolves around whether or not man is the eventual offspring of single-celled life or whether or not life forms are more limited in their range of evolutionary possibilities.

I agree with what Archae said. The purpose of scripture is to bring us to Christ. Period. There is no other purpose. None. Ever. No exceptions.

How does this bring anyone closer to Christ?
I don't really care how we got here. God seems to use nature to do things and it's pretty clear that nature chose evolution. The more interesting question is "why".

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Brian

The more interesting question is "why".

Or "why not?"

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

My first question, Indy:

Are the scriptures written to give us science lessons or for moral and spiritual instruction?

If you conclude as I do, that they are never designed for scientific purposes, then you should conclude that the details of scientific processes may not be exact or even correct, as it is perfectly possible to simply use an analogy to teach a spiritual point.

So what is the spiritual purpose, or purposes of Genesis creation account?

I agree that the creation account is not intended to be primarily of scientific value.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I agree that the creation account is not intended to be primarily of scientific value.

Step 1. Check.

Step 2. Look at all scripture for what its real purpose is: Bringing us to Christ, not as literal history/science/etc/etc/etc.

Scripture is *so* much more interesting and inspiring when you look at it this way.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I agree that the creation account is not intended to be primarily of scientific value.

Wait a minute. Yesterday you were arguing that problems reconciling Genesis with science were merely a result of "translation error".

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Or "why not?"

Yes! A very important angle to frequently try.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Wait a minute. Yesterday you were arguing that problems reconciling Genesis with science were merely a result of "translation error".

No, dipshit, I merely pointed out that the specific issue about the world being created in 6 days was a meaningless argument because the original Hebrew translated as "day" in no way shape or form was meant to indicate a 24 hour period, nor a 1,000 years = 1 Kolob Day period.

I did not attempt to extend "translation error" to cover any of the other creation particulars.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

No, dipshit, I merely pointed out that the specific issue about the world being created in 6 days was a meaningless argument because the original Hebrew translated as "day" in no way shape or form was meant to indicate a 24 hour period, nor a 1,000 years = 1 Kolob Day period.

I did not attempt to extend "translation error" to cover any of the other creation particulars.

LOL. Sure. Here is what you said:

Originally Posted by Dipshit, A.K.A. "Indy Coug"

Well, I'll throw out the world created in 6 days; but as we all know, it's not literal because the translation is flawed.

Let me see if I have this straight: The part about the six days or "creation periods" is literal except except for a slight discrepency due to a translation error. But the rest is just allegory. Gotcha.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

LOL. Sure. Here is what you said:



Let me see if I have this straight: The part about the six days or "creation periods" is literal except except for a slight discrepency due to a translation error. But the rest is just allegory. Gotcha.

The original question in another thread was about which things in the Bible are to be taken literally or figuratively. I and/or Tex were accused of taking the OT too literally. A question was asked when to tell whether or not something was literal or figurative in the OT.

I put forth the example of the "6 days" as something that was clearly figurative. Some have tried to interpret the "6 days" as the literal timeframe in which God created the earth and the heavens. I pointed out that was clearly false and that an obvious translation error was the source of the misunderstanding. I did not attempt to extend this 'translation error approach' to anything else dealing with the creation story and its literalism/symbolism.

I really have a hard time figuring out why or where you're taking issue with this.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The original question in another thread was about which things in the Bible are to be taken literally or figuratively. I and/or Tex were accused of taking the OT too literally. A question was asked when to tell whether or not something was literal or figurative in the OT.

I put forth the example of the "6 days" as something that was clearly figurative. Some have tried to interpret the "6 days" as the literal timeframe in which God created the earth and the heavens. I pointed out that was clearly false and that an obvious translation error was the source of the misunderstanding. I did not attempt to extend this 'translation error approach' to anything else dealing with the creation story and its literalism/symbolism.

I really have a hard time figuring out why or where you're taking issue with this.

You argued that viewing the genesis account figuratively vs. literally was a "meaningless argument" because the expression "six days" was due to a "translation error". You clearly implied that the basic creation account was literal except for a few details lost in translation. Otherwise your "meaningless argument" comment makes no sense. If you are now admitting that the genesis account is allegorical, please explain to me how it is a meaningless argument in the context of yesterday's debate.