What do you REALLY believe in?

Lucas10101

This is a poll to try and see what Christians on these boards really believe in. For example, some don't believe in the Genesis creation story, while the same people might believe in the Virgin Birth...

It's Multiple Choice here as well, and by the way I won't be voting as I'd consdier myself an Anti-Theist.

Explain why as well, if you can?

PDN

I ticked all 4, but I would make a qualification when it comes to the Genesis Creation story. I believe that there was a real first human couple called Adam and Eve, but I am open to various possibilities of how they evolved / were created.

Lucas10101

I’m shocked that the poll shows the results it currently does. For example, all the Christians I know, don’t believe in the Genesis story, because they realise that scientists have proven that the Earth is 4.6 Billion years old or thereabouts. (Not 6,000 as the Genesis story predicts)…

Also with the Genesis story, God says he creates day and night. The next day he creates the Sun. But you can only have day and night upon having the sun first…so it doesn’t make a shred of sense to have day and night made, before the sun. Also, plants can’t grow without the sun…so I can’t really understand that at all.

So which part of this do you actually believe in?

Fanny Cradock

There are a couple of creationists here who would subscribe to the whole 6,000 year old earth thing. I would think that they are in the minority, though.

I'm mote surprised by the 1 person who rejects the basics of Christianity yet considers themselves a Christian. Maybe it's someone playing silly buggers again.

BrianCalgary

Lucas10101 wrote: »

I’m shocked that the poll shows the results it currently does. For example, all the Christians I know, don’t believe in the Genesis story, because they realise that scientists have proven that the Earth is 4.6 Billion years old or thereabouts. (Not 6,000 as the Genesis story predicts)…

Also with the Genesis story, God says he creates day and night. The next day he creates the Sun. But you can only have day and night upon having the sun first…so it doesn’t make a shred of sense to have day and night made, before the sun. Also, plants can’t grow without the sun…so I can’t really understand that at all.

So which part of this do you actually believe in?

I did vote the Creation account as written in Genesis.

I don't believe that science has 'proven' 4.5 billion year old Earth, and I wont get into that discussion on this thread.

Nor does the Genesis account predict 6,000 years old.

I agree fully with your assessment of when the sun was created and it does raise questions that I have with God and look forward to the day when I can ask Him, 'how and when?'

Lucas10101

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I don't believe that science has 'proven' 4.5 billion year old Earth, and I wont get into that discussion on this thread.

From my accounts, Genesis predicts that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Let's compare the degree of wrongness you say that scientists have got.

4,500,000,000/10,000 ==> 450,000...so if Genesis was out by a factor of 5 or 10...I'd understand. But to say scientists are out by a factor of 450,000. It's equivolent to believing that the distance between New York and California is 4 feet.

How do you qualify such a statement? In other words, have you looked at what scientists have done to work out this date, their evidence?

By the way, do you come from a Science background?

Who here that believes in Creationism and Genesis has looked at scientific evidence and ruled it as wrong, if so, what evidence have you looked at?

Fanny Cradock

Lucas10101, there is a massive thread that deals with creationism. One is enough.

wolfsbane

Lucas10101 said:

From my accounts, Genesis predicts that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

I agree with you here.

Let's compare the degree of wrongness you say that scientists have got.

4,500,000,000/10,000 ==> 450,000...so if Genesis was out by a factor of 5 or 10...I'd understand. But to say scientists are out by a factor of 450,000. It's equivolent to believing that the distance between New York and California is 4 feet.

How do you qualify such a statement? In other words, have you looked at what scientists have done to work out this date, their evidence?

By the way, do you come from a Science background?

Who here that believes in Creationism and Genesis has looked at scientific evidence and ruled it as wrong, if so, what evidence have you looked at?

As Fanny has said, look at the Bible, Creation & Prophecy thread for a detailed :eek: examination of the issue.

Cantab.

Yawn.

Since when is the book of Genesis a "story"?

Also, literal translation of the Bible vs literary framework.

Look it up.

Millions have already "been there and done that".

0utpost31

PDN wrote: »

I believe that there was a real first human couple called Adam and Eve, but I am open to various possibilities of how they evolved / were created.

I find it scary that you actually believe in Adam and Eve. What various possibilities are you talking of?

Fanny Cradock

Is that like 'I need a hug' scary? Or is it more of a hyperbolized scary?

PDN

0utpost31 wrote: »

I find it scary that you actually believe in Adam and Eve. What various possibilities are you talking of?

The book of Genesis does not give us any idea of how old the earth is. A literal interpretation of Genesis is consistent with believing in an earth that is millions of years old.

I don't find it scary when people hold different opinions. But then again I'm a tolerant kind of a chap. Fear of those who think differently from yourself is a mark of bigotry.

The possibilities could include:
a) God directly creating Adam and Eve out of dust.
b) Adam & Even being the first two individuals who, as a result of evolution, were recognisably homo sapiens. Wherever the dividing line is drawn then someone had to be the first to cross it.
c) Adam and Eve being the first people to be infused with a spirit, rather than just being animals composed solely of meat.

I think the Bible allows for any of the above possibilities.

I am not a scientist, so I have no wish to pontificate on matters that I know nothing about. There's enough of that going on on this board already. I'm happy to admit that I don't know some stuff and therefore remain open to several possibilities.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

The book of Genesis does not give us any idea of how old the earth is. A literal interpretation of Genesis is consistent with believing in an earth that is millions of years old.

Please correct me if/where I'm mistaken PDN. Didn't a medieval (Irish as far as I'm aware) monk simply add up the probable time frames (by his standards) in the Bible based on how old he taught people mentioned in the Bible were and how long events would have taken to reach the conclusion that the world was roughly 6,000 years old?

[quote=PDN[/quote]
The possibilities could include:
a) God directly creating Adam and Eve out of dust.
b) Adam & Even being the first two individuals who, as a result of evolution, were recognisably homo sapiens. Wherever the dividing line is drawn then someone had to be the first to cross it.
c) Adam and Eve being the first people to be infused with a spirit, rather than just being animals composed solely of meat.
[/QUOTE]

I suppose C could be infused with option A or B couldn't it?

AtomicHorror

Lucas10101 wrote: »

From my accounts, Genesis predicts that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Let's compare the degree of wrongness you say that scientists have got.

4,500,000,000/10,000 ==> 450,000...so if Genesis was out by a factor of 5 or 10...I'd understand. But to say scientists are out by a factor of 450,000. It's equivolent to believing that the distance between New York and California is 4 feet.

How do you qualify such a statement? In other words, have you looked at what scientists have done to work out this date, their evidence?

By the way, do you come from a Science background?

Who here that believes in Creationism and Genesis has looked at scientific evidence and ruled it as wrong, if so, what evidence have you looked at?

The interpretation you're ascribing to all literalists is rather more specific to the creationists. As PDN says, there's actually a fair bit of wriggle room in the text itself. In fact, there are passages in the old testament that were once taken by some rather unimaginative literalists to indicate that the world is flat. But there are literal interpretations and there are stubbornly blinkered literal interpretations. I've been told that there are also some translational ambiguities that muddy the waters further, but I wouldn't claim to have a grasp of that whole issue.

PDN obviously feels there's plenty of room for the more open minded, yet still literal, interpretation. The creationists do not and consider most of mainstream science to simply be wrong. I'd maintain that PDN can eliminate option A from his list, but I would say that

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

Please correct me if/where I'm mistaken PDN. Didn't a medieval (Irish as far as I'm aware) monk simply add up the probable time frames (by his standards) in the Bible based on how old he taught people mentioned in the Bible were and how long events would have taken to reach the conclusion that the world was roughly 6,000 years old?

James Ussher, Anglican Bishop of Armagh, calculated that the world was created in late afternoon on the 23rd of October 4004 BC.

Many who treat the Bible as the inspired, and even inerrant, Word of God would disagree with Ussher. Some do not see the six days of Creation as necessarily being 24 hours long. Others see a gap, possibly millions of years, between God creating the earth and creating mankind. Others recognise that Ancient Near East genealogies were incomplete, only recording the most notable ancestors, so are useless for determining chronology.

Galvasean

Cheers PDN. I alwys taught it was an odd way of calculating the length of the universe/world considering the Bible couldn't possibly (nor would it need to) mention everybody who ever existed.

electrofilth

PDN wrote: »

I ticked all 4, but I would make a qualification when it comes to the Genesis Creation story. I believe that there was a real first human couple called Adam and Eve, but I am open to various possibilities of how they evolved / were created.

if you believe there was a first couple called adam and eve, where did they exist, geographically? what race were they? do you think that in ten thousand years that all other races mutated from one race of two original people? do you not know that inbreeding naturally causes birth defects, and that this would of been a bit of a rocky start for two people to create a whole planet of people in only 10,000 years? believing in a god is one thing, but blindly believing in daft stories like adam and eve is kind of pushing it....

PDN

electrofilth wrote: »

if you believe there was a first couple called adam and eve, where did they exist, geographically? what race were they? do you think that in ten thousand years that all other races mutated from one race of two original people? do you not know that inbreeding naturally causes birth defects, and that this would of been a bit of a rocky start for two people to create a whole planet of people in only 10,000 years? believing in a god is one thing, but blindly believing in daft stories like adam and eve is kind of pushing it....

If you want to respond to posts try reading the thread first. I don't believe that the world, or the human race is only 10,000 years old.

I don't believe that the human race 'mutated' from two people, but I believe it very likely it descended from two people.

I don't pretend to be a scientist, but I do understand that DNA studies indicate that all humans alive today are descended from one woman playfully nicknamed Mitochondrial Eve.

I also think you are on a hiding to nothing if you're going to try to argue that an omnipotent God who created the universe out of nothing would be unable to prevent a few birth defects from occurring.

Húrin

Resurrection, Virgin Birth, and Heaven but not hell (they should be separated in the poll).

How is anyone a Christian without at least resurrection?

0utpost31 wrote: »

I find it scary that you actually believe in Adam and Eve. What various possibilities are you talking of?

Yes, he's a fundamentalist terrorist using the WiFi at a phone box near your house to type that message, from which he will progress to your house with his belt bomb to blast you to hell. Clearly. :rolleyes:

PDN wrote: »

I don't pretend to be a scientist, but I do understand that DNA studies indicate that all humans alive today are descended from one woman playfully nicknamed Mitochondrial Eve.

There is also an Adam figure from which all humans descend, according to genetics. However, the Eve figure and Adam figure lived about 70,000 years apart from each other, but both in Africa.

AtomicHorror

electrofilth wrote: »

if you believe there was a first couple called adam and eve, where did they exist, geographically? what race were they? do you think that in ten thousand years that all other races mutated from one race of two original people? do you not know that inbreeding naturally causes birth defects, and that this would of been a bit of a rocky start for two people to create a whole planet of people in only 10,000 years? believing in a god is one thing, but blindly believing in daft stories like adam and eve is kind of pushing it....

There's a thread for this. At any rate PDN never claimed any of the 10,000 years stuff you're spouting to be the truth, he's made that pretty clear.

electrofilth

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There's a thread for this. At any rate PDN never claimed any of the 10,000 years stuff you're spouting to be the truth, he's made that pretty clear.

sorry for misquoting him/her on that.....it was a lazy kind of assumption i made.sorry again