Well at least we can finally dispense with the "George Bush is a Christian" myth.
Good grief.
So the sun revolves around the earth and was created after the earth?
Well at least we can finally dispense with the "George Bush is a Christian" myth.
Well, pretty much every Christian Scholar agrees that not everything in the Bible is literally true. A great deal of it is literally true, but not all. Doesn't mean the rest is false, since the Bible contains several different writing styles.
As for evolution being compatible with the Bible, I disagree with Bush.
First thought -
This is the man that publicly proclaims that Islam is a religion of peace.
“Literally true” is a tough phrase. Different parts of Scripture are different types of literature. We have parables, we have poetry, we have history, we have prophetic literature, and so on. You have to approach each type of writing in Scripture as it was intended to be interpreted.
That said, the creation account is clearly to be taken historically. I, like many others, don’t see evolution as compatible with Scripture. Indeed, each creature that God created reproduced “after its kind” — that’s a VERY CLEAR denunciation of evolution.
But some Christians are ashamed of God’s words, and try to wiggle away from it by saying that the theory of some scientists is compatible with God’s Word. I agree with other scientists that evolution is NOT compatible with Scripture, and encourage FReepers to just choose one or the other. As for me, I choose the historical and biblical truth that God created a variety of “kinds” of creatures, which have drifted genetically, but which have always remained within their “kind,” and have never “evolved” (an increase of genetic information over time).
Um, no we can’t. Unless you have the same insight into his heart that God has. Are you holding out on us?
Spoken like a true fundi bigot.
Scroll down to:
Religious and Philosophical Reasons Why We Don’t Have Inerrant Copies
This is the granddaddy of the issues in answering this argument. The first aspect of it is one that Skeptics themselves should easily see.
Hardened skeptics often call Christians "bibliolaters" - thus implying that the Bible is some sort of "leather-covered security blanket" that Christians worship and would be frantic without. This charge is unfortunately sometimes true, although I could say the same of some skeptics and their copies of Origin of the Species, or of certain adherents of certain Skeptics in regards to their own fearless leaders. At any rate, we can see easily why, first, this dichotomy is wrong, in terms of a blanket assessment; and second, how this leads us to the biggest reason why we do not have inerrant copies of Scripture today.
First, it is plain that neither the Bible nor a belief in inerrancy is required to be a Christian. If this were so, then skeptics like Frank Morison or C. S. Lewis, who believed in the historicity of the Resurrection but not in the inerrancy of the Gospel reports of it, would never become Christians. ..." Click above link to continue.
Sigh... then you must think that the Pope and most Catholics aren’t Christian, either. We believe Genesis to be the story of Creation, not the literal truth.
Fundamentalism - believing the Bible to be the literal truth - is a relatively recent phenomenon.
We?
Got a gerbil in your pocket?
“Well at least we can finally dispense with the “George Bush is a Christian” myth.”
If everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, how do we account for two different versions of Genesis?