[SchrödingersCat]

The problem with Creationists is that they insist on a hyperliteralist view of Genesis as an acid test of faith. I have very little problems holding to a high view of Scripture and a 15 billion year old theistic evolutionary view of the universe.

The issue is Christ, not an interpretation of Genesis.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Ah, but good sire, how could that bunch of wandering sheepherders have described (much less counted) the right date when powers-of-ten, ten itself(!), logs, decimals places, and the zero itself had not yet been invented?

Yet, somehow, Genisis has every step of the modern story in the right order (from the creation of the first plasmas (waters above) and fusion to the seas and through continental drift, through the moon's creation after the earth and solar system to evolution to plants, insects, dinosaurs -> birds -> mammals -> domesticated mammals ....

Gee. Remarkable.

[kuma]

I think the brick wall is the following. Christ is the Second Adam. Now if there was no First Adam why bother with the Second?

[Woahhs]

The issue is Christ, not an interpretation of Genesis.

And what do we have recorded as Christ's view of Genesis?

[vt_crosscut]

"The issue is Christ, not an interpretation of Genesis"

Genesis is the foundation of the Christian faith. If Genesis is open to interpretation, then the entire Bible is nothing more than a story book, and Jesus Christ ranks right up there with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Do I sometime find it hard to believe that there is an all powerful God that created the heavens and earth? Yes, of course. But I also believe that Jesus Christ was the perfect Son of God, died on the cross, was buried, rose again on the third day, and all this was done for my salvation. My faith does not allow me to seperate the parts of the Bible that I want to believe from the parts that I want to think are a nice story.

[MEGoody]

"The problem with Creationists is that they insist on a hyperliteralist view of Genesis as an acid test of faith. I have very little problems holding to a high view of Scripture and a 15 billion year old theistic evolutionary view of the universe."

The problem with YOU is that you believe God created everything (al beit by starting everything with the first single-celled creature, then guiding all through evolution), but you talk about creationists as though they were nutcases to be dismissed.

Hate to tell you this, but YOU are a creationist. You just think God did it differently than others might.

[Agamemnon]

The issue is Christ, not an interpretation of Genesis.

Unless, of course, when Jesus Christ quotes Genesis, speaking in the context of the human race, and declares unequivocably that He who made them at the beginning of the creation, made them male and female. (see Mark 10:6)

Call it "hyper-literalist," if you like, but then there was no one more hyper-literalist than Jesus Christ himself. Jesus personalized his affirmation of the credibility of the writings of Moses (of which Genesis is the first book of Moses), when he states clearly in John 5: 46 & 47: " For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

If Christianity defines you, theistic evolution cannot. Either what Moses wrote is true, the way God inspired him to write it, or Jesus Christ is a liar. Stated differently, either Genesis is true or Jesus Christ isn't the Son of God.

[Woahhs]

If your view were incorrect, how could someone prove it to you?

Yes, this is a serious question, so think about the answer.