Genesis doesn't require denial of evolution, right?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070326/ts_nm/france_creationism_dc;_ylt=ArIyWxrIO3i.8tUnL5dQEFMDW7oF
2007-03-27 01:32:08 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
1. Literalism vs. Truth: Things that are not literal may still be true. Things that are literal may still be false. Genesis does not have to be taken literally to be "true" anymore than poetry has to be taken literally to be true.
2. Creation vs. Evolution: Acceptance of evolution does not require denial of a creator. And a creator does not require denial of evolution The creator may well have created the process of evolution just as he created the process of sexual reproduction.
2007-03-27 01:42:07 · update #1
3. Saying that one part of the Bible is symbolic and another is literal is not a problem - it's just the way it is. And it is inarguable. Here is a figurative/symbolic/metaphorical passage: Solomon 5 12 "His eyes are like doves
by the water streams,
washed in milk,
mounted like jewels." See? That can't possibly be taken literally. There are two similes here. His eyes are like doves. That's figurative. They are not REALLY like doves (with wings and beeks), but they are beautiful like doves are. So there it is - it's out - some portion of the Bible is not literal. The sky is still there, and the sun still shines.
2007-03-27 02:31:40 · update #2
Literally....
Why wouldn't you? It is after all.....the truth.
2007-03-27 01:36:25 · answer #1 · answered by primoa1970 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The problem is that if you say one part of the bible is symbolic and not literal, then any part could be considered as symbolic. This also raises the question, if god created the universe, couldn't he have given a better description of it that would match what we know?
Making Genesis symbolic also has problems with original sin in that we have a story about how sin came into the world that is symbolic but tells us nothing at all about how it really happened.
No clue about which view is more prevalent amongst Christians though.
2007-03-27 08:50:47 · answer #2 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Many Christians have tried to accommodate the theory of evolution by viewing the creation account in Genesis symbolically, eg a day could be a million years or more. The theory of evolution requires vast periods of time to occur. However, it creates theological problems in other areas that are not so easily accommodated. Given that the theory of evoulution is just that, a theory, the belief in the creation account is not contrary to scientific discovery but a more credible alternative.
2007-03-27 09:00:28 · answer #3 · answered by chekeir 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Taken literally, Genesis requires denial of evolution.
2007-03-27 08:35:56 · answer #4 · answered by awayforabit 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This one doesn't view Genesis as "symbolic" I view Genesis as the truth as God spoke it, or intuited it to Moses, either directly, or through the Holy Spirit.
I believe that if God said He created the world, then He did.
By the way, Creation is just a very small portion of Genesis.
2007-03-27 08:41:16 · answer #5 · answered by thankyou "iana" 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Believing in Evolution requires denial of Creation...
Believing in Creation requires denial of Evolution...
2007-03-27 08:37:21 · answer #6 · answered by leila 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Read the first 2 chapters and write down the order in which everything was created for both stories. Compare your list and ask yourself if it should be taken literally
2007-03-27 08:44:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nope I take everything on the book of Genesis literally, as everything in the Bible should be
2007-03-27 08:47:08 · answer #8 · answered by Julie 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it should be read symbolically. Beginning with Abraham the events begin to have a historical basis.
Peace!
2007-03-27 08:39:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋