What does it mean to read the Bible literally? A few points to consider:
1. Princeton professor of theology, Benjamin Warfield, one of the authors of The Fundamentals, published from 1910 to 1915, the classic book series outlining the basic elements of Protestant Fundamentalism, saw no contradiction between evolution as describing the mechanism by which species appeared after God had created the initial material of the cosmos. Warfield, though, maintained that God created each human soul by divine act, even if the physical body of the first human had evolved from some lower primate species. For Warfield, biblical literalism and evolution were compatible.
2. At the time of the Scopes' trial in 1925, there were no biblical literalists in mainstream Christian denominations who maintained a six, 24-hour, day creation. The one Christian group that held to that idea were the Seventh Day Adventists, whose belief in a six, 24-hour, day creation was not due to a "literal" reading of the Bible, but to the visions of their founder, prophetess Ellen G. White, whose visions were placed on the same level as the Bible by Seventh Day Adventists. White claimed that God showed her images of the world's creation in six, 24-hour, days, and of Noah's Flood causing the geological strata and fossils. For White and Adventists, biblical literalism and evolution were incompatible; a view not held by other Christian literalists of the 1920s.
3. A real "literal" interpretation of Genesis would lead to several conclusions:
a. The whole earth is not said to be a perfect paradise; rather Eden, and specifically the garden within Eden, is paradise, and Eden's geographical limits are described.
b. Adam and Eve are not created naturally immortal, but naturally mortal and are prohibited from the tree of Life, lest they eat of it and live forever.
c. Adam, Eve, and family are not the only humans around, meaning that Cain can find a wife. It also means that these other people, in the land of Nod, are said to be capable of killing Cain.
d. Adam and Eve are not the only beings with human-type intelligence. The serpent is described as having intelligence, reason, and the awareness of death; he knows God's commandments, and might even be smarter than the humans. And yet the serpent is not described as being in the image of God, implying that....
e. The "image of God" does not refer to intelligence, reason, or other typically human characteristics. What exactly it refers to, is left open.
f. The serpent is intentionally rebelling against God, implying that non-human animals had sinned before Adam and Eve; thus, Adam and Eve were created in a world (except for the garden in Eden) that already knew sin and death. There was an animal Fall into sin, that occurred before the human Fall into sin.
g. Thus, there was death before the human Fall into sin. The serpent knew about death, because he mentioned it. Adam and Eve knew about death, because both God and the serpent mentioned death to them. And the people outside of Eden who could potentially kill Cain, obviously also know about death, because of their ability to kill other people.
(See Joshua Moritz, "The Search for Adam Revisited," Theology and Science, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 367-377)
1.Benjamin Warfield-holds no authority on truth or recognizing it because he has been deluded and not part of the Church -same with Joshua Moritz
"The Scopes Trial—formally known as The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes .............................. The trial was thus both a theological contest, and a trial on the veracity of modern science
regarding the creation-evolution controversy."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial
n. pl. ve·rac·i·ties
1. Adherence to the truth; truthfulness. See Synonyms at truth.
2. Conformity to fact or truth; accuracy or precision: a report of doubtful veracity.
3. Something that is true.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/veracity
I thought no one was claiming science was truth? I think part of the problem is that science has essentially become a belief in herself, so much so that, instead of studying the observable it now has to claim anything not visible is not real.
Should we care if a secular court finds evolution compatible with creation?
"You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial
This had also been said in the trial.
Read the whole attachment, this started as a scam to draw attention to the area according to wikipedia.
meh, my understanding is not sufficient. These arguments are very weak and can be answered a plethora of ways, evolution is not the only answer to these questions.
I can not understand much of scripture. I certainly can't prove it scientifically. The devil, demons, heaven, hell, the birth of Christ, miracles of Christ, death of Christ, resurrection of Christ, (shall I go on?) are we going to develop scientific theories that would be more acceptable to society (or to our notions) for each of these?
Someone suggested that us coming from mud, or, being formed of dust and having life breathed into us, is compatible. We are not going to be deceived by a worldview that is radically different are we. Remember our battle is not against the observable.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
So by looking at the world through science (the observable) do we lose focus on the unobservable? Perhaps not so unintentional as we might think? I am not suggesting science is evil, but it has been manipulated to draw many away from the Church. Perhaps putting it back in it's proper place and stop trying to use it to explain something quite beyond its framework allows for, will remove some of the devilish impact it is having.
I mean, unless we think we can build a tower high enough to be with God, of course.