So this is probably a question that all of you have either asked yourselves or been asked by others. I've had conversations multiple times about this subject since the first time that I came online.
I know of three versions of how Genesis can fit with evolution. GAP, Day-age, and allegorical.
GAP to me is a joke. It proposes that between the versus in genesis ( between 1:19 and 1:20 if I remember correctly) the bible leaves out millions ( or billions) of years. Besides the fact that this makes god out to be a deceiver, it also still doesn't explain why the rest of creation is out of order. Like why the earth and plants are created before the sun.
Day-age makes an attempt to explain things by turning day into some indistinguishable period of time. Mainly by using versus like 2 Peter 3:8.
Again we encounter the same problem as the first though. The arrangement of creation is out of order.
The last attempt is by saying that Genesis is allegorical. This is probably the best attempt at making things fit. Mainly that of making it so that it doesn't matter what order the Genesis account is in because that is not the point of the verse. They aren't suppose to be taken literally.
One problem with this, and this includes the above versions as well. On what basis are we determining that Genesis isn't meant to be taken literally. Why should we drop the one interpretation for the others?
The main answer that I've gotten for this is that if we want science to fit with Genesis then we need to change Genesis in order to make it fit with our understanding of science. An example of this can be found here.
So this leads me to ask. Should the bible determine reality or should reality determine the bible? Because if Genesis is taken as non-literal so that we can fit it with science, then does that not mean that we create a precedence when it comes to how we look at the world? Wouldn't that mean that when science determines whether an event/object is good or bad for us then the bible takes a back seat? And if the bible takes a back seat, wouldn't that undermine the idea that it is the inspired word of god? I say it does.
Between the moderate Christians and the fundamentalist I always go with the moderates. I would rather have people who are pro rather then anti science. Still, on this subject I have come to realize that I cannot agree with moderates. Not with what has been presented. I can no longer tell a fundie directly that I see no conflict with science and the bible.
What are your thoughts. Do you think that these two can reach some reasonable ( if not god written) consensus on the matter? I would be interested in hearing what you have to say.
As a side note, I really enjoy Robert Ingersoll's Some Mistakes of Moses.
Great read if you find the time.
Of course god doesn't have breasts.
The Jewish god is portrayed as a male so who will deny he has testosterone and the other accoutrements of masculinity? His age has surely lessened the amount he has, so under his robes two of his male accoutrements resemble those of a female god.
I regularly tease xians by asking how do they know god isn't a woman.
BTW, I'm eighty and age has lessened the amount of t I once had. A woman I know told me I have A-cup-size boobs.
About 25 years ago in a sex ed training for a volunteer position, I feigned hurt and asked two lesbians if masculinity is both a birth defect and a mental illness. They of course said it is and we laughed. I didn't for a moment believe them.
Well, if the Song of Songs was actually about the love of Israel for god, and if it were literally read, he would be thus:
1. black -- 1:5 I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem
2. young and slender -- 2:9 My beloved is like a gazelle or a young hart
3. sexy but particular -- 3:5 I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem ... That ye awaken not, nor stir up love, Until it please
4. likes to drink: 5:1 Drink, yea, drink abundantly (referring to a previous line about wine)
5: uses his hands: 5:4 My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door (notice "put IN", and the "hole of the door")
Oops, looks like Michelangelo was wrong!!!
I was unable to find the part about breasts that didn't seem to clearly imply a woman, so I stand corrected on that, and you can return that bra to the store!
To what end?
With enough money, or with power's ability to attract money, I need trust no one.
Other than history's many tyrants, who needs to trust no one?
People who, when they were young, had trusted and were hurt.
Self-confidence can reduce the need, if it's learned in time.
How do people learn self-confidence?
Short answer - no. Why? Well, for the same reason that astrology and astronomy cannot co-exist. One is pure human fantasy utterly bereft of any supporting evidence and the other is the scientific study of the available physical evidence (reality).
Dorris, human fantasies and scientific studies do not both exist?
Sci-fi exists; fiction (historical, romantic and other) exists; memoirs by ousted politicians exist; the bible and many other religious writings exist.
Maybe scientific studies don't exist.
She's following the same context as the question. The original question is perhaps worded a bit weakly.
Of course Genesis and Evolution can exist in the heads of different people in the same world. That's not what the question is asking. The original question is essentially asking if they can be merged into one consistent, coherent whole ... which they can't.
What! Blaspheme! :)
Genesis is Moses telling backstory. The biology book goes on the bookshelf, the Bible goes on the end table; and don't let me catch you assembling them again! :D