If you believe in evolution, then you are disregarding scripture or your allergies it either one makes you by definition, not a Christian. College and pulpit are taking God’s name in vain and that’s dangerous thing to do.
I think being a Christian is fully accepting that Jesus is Lord over our lives and accepting that He is our Saviour who died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins.
@@estimatingonediscoveringthree Getting truth from the Bible doesn't mean you can't recognize some parts of the Bible as non-literal (like when the Psalms say that the rivers clap their hands or Revelation and Daniel talk of "beasts" that are really symbols of governments). Even if you think a person is interpreting something wrongly, it doesn't mean they aren't trying to understand the truth from the Bible correctly or that they don't regard the Bible as absolutely authoritative. Just that some things the Bible says are non-literal. By the way, Jesus revealed the Father to us, and he was very fond of teaching through parables which were not meant to be taken literally.
@ so you are the arbeiter of truth and not the text. “what did God say?” every cult goes down the same path, perverting the Wors of God, and fashioning a belwif system they prefer, contrary to objective truth. no, you cant hand pick what you like from the Bible and call yourself a Christian. if you do, your a cult, you have teisted , cultivated the original word.
I find it amazing how W. L. Craig can make up totally unsustainable and absurd mis- interpretations of Genesis and talk about it for hours and there are actual human beings so totally deluded they listen to it!!! This is a never ending circumlocutory obfuscation of absurdity. Hey, Craig, wake up, if genesis isn't the literal "word of god" it's a irrelevant nonsense. If it is accepted as the true "word of god", it is literal and therefore designed to be understandable by anyone who reads it. Did everyone 3,000 years understand a functional concept of creation? No, so what that means is Craig is talking absolute unsustainable sh#t. A load of obfuscating waffle which has absolutely no truth relevance in terms of gods word in Genesis. Craig..... You're a comedian. (This rubbish also demonstrates the absurdity of philosophy and the reason for it's declaration of being dead in the real world.) Finally Craig, take a journey into the real world of gods literal Genesis verses 1-5. Genesis follows a simple pattern (even a PhD in philosophy should be able to understand but apparently can't). Every sentence before stating: "And the evening and the morning were the X day" relates to the actual single day. What that means (for those who aren't brain dead or liars and deceivers), when it says "In the beginning god created the heavens and earth" the mind numbingly obvious fact is (as there is no further literal explanation BY GOD) it refers to the firs day of creation i.e. creation was not 6 days + a few billion years before the end of day one, it was literally exactly as stated: 6 days then god rested. Sentences 1-5 in chapter 1 of Genesis were, and were intended to be, part of day one and anything attempting to refute or re-interpret that is not only false but blasphemy.
Why do you think your interpretation of Genesis is without a doubt the only valid interpretation? The arrogance in thinking that your particular interpretation is infallible is a bit troubling, as if this is an extremely simple text and anyone who thinks otherwise is "brain-dead". Sincere believing Christians throughout history have wrestled with how to interpret the first chapters of Genesis, and many (Augustine for example) did not insist that the days being described were necessarily literal 24-hour days. And this was way before any external pressures from modern science like evolutionary theory, but from studying the text itself. The light being created before the sun and moon, as well as the dischronology in Genesis 2:4-6, have led many thinking Christians to understand that okay maybe this isn't quite as simplistic as it may first sound. Did God literally rest on the 7th day? Jesus did say that His father is always working until today. If God didn't literally rest, does that mean Genesis isn't true? What about in the Gospels when Jesus said "Anyone who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me"? Do you think He meant that literally? If not, why not? I am not sure why some Christians seem to equate "literal" with "historical", as if something cannot possibly be conveying true history unless it is literal... Judges 5 is a good example of how this is not necessarily the case. I have seen some equate the "how long did it take?" question of Genesis with core doctrines like the virgin birth or resurrection of Jesus, which I think is wildly misguided. I hope you and others with a similar mindset adopt some humility & grace when it comes to interpreting the "how long" question of creation. Contrary to what Ken Ham thinks, this is NOT a salvation issue.. Truth in Scripture is conveyed through different literary genres - no serious thinking Christian would argue that the Book of Revelation or the Psalms are meant to be taken the exact same way as the Gospels or the Epistles... The "arm of the Lord" in Scripture is probably not describing a literal arm of God like Mormons think He has.
If you believe in evolution, then you are disregarding scripture or your allergies it either one makes you by definition, not a Christian. College and pulpit are taking God’s name in vain and that’s dangerous thing to do.
I think being a Christian is fully accepting that Jesus is Lord over our lives and accepting that He is our Saviour who died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins.
@ where do you get that idea from?
@ ….you probably know wherr this discussion will go next…..
@@estimatingonediscoveringthree
Getting truth from the Bible doesn't mean you can't recognize some parts of the Bible as non-literal (like when the Psalms say that the rivers clap their hands or Revelation and Daniel talk of "beasts" that are really symbols of governments). Even if you think a person is interpreting something wrongly, it doesn't mean they aren't trying to understand the truth from the Bible correctly or that they don't regard the Bible as absolutely authoritative. Just that some things the Bible says are non-literal.
By the way, Jesus revealed the Father to us, and he was very fond of teaching through parables which were not meant to be taken literally.
@ so you are the arbeiter of truth and not the text.
“what did God say?”
every cult goes down the same path, perverting the Wors of God, and fashioning a belwif system they prefer, contrary to objective truth.
no, you cant hand pick what you like from the Bible and call yourself a Christian. if you do, your a cult, you have teisted , cultivated the original word.
I find it amazing how W. L. Craig can make up totally unsustainable and absurd mis- interpretations of Genesis and talk about it for hours and there are actual human beings so totally deluded they listen to it!!!
This is a never ending circumlocutory obfuscation of absurdity.
Hey, Craig, wake up, if genesis isn't the literal "word of god" it's a irrelevant nonsense. If it is accepted as the true "word of god", it is literal and therefore designed to be understandable by anyone who reads it. Did everyone 3,000 years understand a functional concept of creation? No, so what that means is Craig is talking absolute unsustainable sh#t. A load of obfuscating waffle which has absolutely no truth relevance in terms of gods word in Genesis.
Craig..... You're a comedian. (This rubbish also demonstrates the absurdity of philosophy and the reason for it's declaration of being dead in the real world.)
Finally Craig, take a journey into the real world of gods literal Genesis verses 1-5. Genesis follows a simple pattern (even a PhD in philosophy should be able to understand but apparently can't). Every sentence before stating: "And the evening and the morning were the X day" relates to the actual single day. What that means (for those who aren't brain dead or liars and deceivers), when it says "In the beginning god created the heavens and earth" the mind numbingly obvious fact is (as there is no further literal explanation BY GOD) it refers to the firs day of creation i.e. creation was not 6 days + a few billion years before the end of day one, it was literally exactly as stated: 6 days then god rested. Sentences 1-5 in chapter 1 of Genesis were, and were intended to be, part of day one and anything attempting to refute or re-interpret that is not only false but blasphemy.
Why do you think your interpretation of Genesis is without a doubt the only valid interpretation? The arrogance in thinking that your particular interpretation is infallible is a bit troubling, as if this is an extremely simple text and anyone who thinks otherwise is "brain-dead".
Sincere believing Christians throughout history have wrestled with how to interpret the first chapters of Genesis, and many (Augustine for example) did not insist that the days being described were necessarily literal 24-hour days. And this was way before any external pressures from modern science like evolutionary theory, but from studying the text itself.
The light being created before the sun and moon, as well as the dischronology in Genesis 2:4-6, have led many thinking Christians to understand that okay maybe this isn't quite as simplistic as it may first sound.
Did God literally rest on the 7th day? Jesus did say that His father is always working until today. If God didn't literally rest, does that mean Genesis isn't true? What about in the Gospels when Jesus said "Anyone who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me"? Do you think He meant that literally? If not, why not?
I am not sure why some Christians seem to equate "literal" with "historical", as if something cannot possibly be conveying true history unless it is literal... Judges 5 is a good example of how this is not necessarily the case. I have seen some equate the "how long did it take?" question of Genesis with core doctrines like the virgin birth or resurrection of Jesus, which I think is wildly misguided.
I hope you and others with a similar mindset adopt some humility & grace when it comes to interpreting the "how long" question of creation. Contrary to what Ken Ham thinks, this is NOT a salvation issue.. Truth in Scripture is conveyed through different literary genres - no serious thinking Christian would argue that the Book of Revelation or the Psalms are meant to be taken the exact same way as the Gospels or the Epistles... The "arm of the Lord" in Scripture is probably not describing a literal arm of God like Mormons think He has.