On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
Jesus made a way for us to be saved. He tells us how we should live; how we were made to live. If people want to cherry pick verses to believe, then it's on their shoulders. Only God knows who's truly a converted Christian, that's why Christians are only to judge other believers inside the church, and not those outside the church.
On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
No true scotsman is horrendously misused all over the internet, and here's a prime example.
A "true Christian" is an actual thing. If you refer to, say, an Englishman and say he is not a true Scotsman, then you're correct. In the same way, if you refer to a nominal (by name) Christian as a true Christian, you're incorrect.
On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
Jesus made a way for us to be saved. He tells us how we should live; how we were made to live. If people want to cherry pick verses to believe, then it's on their shoulders. Only God knows who's truly a converted Christian, that's why Christians are only to judge other believers inside the church, and not those outside the church.
Yes but the way that you know is not necessarily the correct way. If there is one thing we can learn from the huge variety in interpretations it is that there is no clearly definitive answer.
Also you have to cherry pick verses since some are contradictory and some are just random rules that have no logical rationale behind them. Nobody cares about veils and clothing because they have no real theological explanation.
On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
No true scotsman is horrendously misused all over the internet, and here's a prime example.
A "true Christian" is an actual thing. If you refer to, say, an Englishman and say he is not a true Scotsman, then you're correct. In the same way, if you refer to a nominal (by name) Christian as a true Christian, you're incorrect.
A "true Christian" may be an actual thing (as opposed to someone who doesn't believe in the tenets of Christianity), but there's enough of a spectrum for what tenets are taken more literally, more seriously, etc., what Bible verses trump the others, and other minor differences, that entire sects of Christianity with different opinions have been created. So saying that some Christians aren't really Christians because they don't take each verse or tenet to the exact level that you do, is falling victim to the fallacy.
On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
No true scotsman is horrendously misused all over the internet, and here's a prime example.
A "true Christian" is an actual thing. If you refer to, say, an Englishman and say he is not a true Scotsman, then you're correct. In the same way, if you refer to a nominal (by name) Christian as a true Christian, you're incorrect.
A "true Christian" may be an actual thing (as opposed to someone who doesn't believe in the tenets of Christianity), but there's enough of a spectrum for what tenets are taken more literally, more seriously, etc., what Bible verses trump the others, and other minor differences, that entire sects of Christianity with different opinions have been created. So saying that some Christians aren't really Christians because they don't take each verse or tenet to the exact level that you do, is falling victim to the fallacy.
A true Christian isn't someone who believes in the tenets of Christianity, but rather someone who is in a saved state. It's not particularly easy to tell who those people are though in every instance, I'll give you that
On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
No true scotsman is horrendously misused all over the internet, and here's a prime example.
A "true Christian" is an actual thing. If you refer to, say, an Englishman and say he is not a true Scotsman, then you're correct. In the same way, if you refer to a nominal (by name) Christian as a true Christian, you're incorrect.
A "true Christian" may be an actual thing (as opposed to someone who doesn't believe in the tenets of Christianity), but there's enough of a spectrum for what tenets are taken more literally, more seriously, etc., what Bible verses trump the others, and other minor differences, that entire sects of Christianity with different opinions have been created. So saying that some Christians aren't really Christians because they don't take each verse or tenet to the exact level that you do, is falling victim to the fallacy.
A true Christian isn't someone who believes in the tenets of Christianity, but rather someone who is in a saved state. It's not particularly easy to tell who those people are though in every instance, I'll give you that
On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
No true scotsman is horrendously misused all over the internet, and here's a prime example.
A "true Christian" is an actual thing. If you refer to, say, an Englishman and say he is not a true Scotsman, then you're correct. In the same way, if you refer to a nominal (by name) Christian as a true Christian, you're incorrect.
A "true Christian" may be an actual thing (as opposed to someone who doesn't believe in the tenets of Christianity), but there's enough of a spectrum for what tenets are taken more literally, more seriously, etc., what Bible verses trump the others, and other minor differences, that entire sects of Christianity with different opinions have been created. So saying that some Christians aren't really Christians because they don't take each verse or tenet to the exact level that you do, is falling victim to the fallacy.
A true Christian isn't someone who believes in the tenets of Christianity, but rather someone who is in a saved state. It's not particularly easy to tell who those people are though in every instance, I'll give you that
This. While we have fundamental beliefs (or simply put: everything we need to know) to be a follower of Christ, we are just as sinful and just as guilty as every human being who ever existed. We can only invite Jesus into our heart, claim his Lordship, and accept his gracious gift of forgiveness. Jesus is the one who saves and transforms the person's heart. No amount of work or money will get you favored in his eyes. As dull as it sounds to most people, we are called to trust Jesus' claims.
As mentioned previously, it's hard to know who is truly a Christian and who isn't. The Bible says you'll know them by their fruits, and even then it's still difficult although there are some people who make it very obvious (like Chris Tomlin). What we do know is that only God knows who's truly converted. That poses a question however: how do you know you're saved then? That's where the Holy Spirit comes into you and assures you, and he lives in all true believers, causing them all to be like-minded. Christians who seek to know God more know how humbling and satisfying it is to be in the presence of other believers after going through a long, hard week.
Anyway I dont' mean to derail the purpose of this thread, just wanted to elaborate a little bit on what Birdie was saying.
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
I just have to point this out, not to be mean or anything, but there's one thing that always bugs me about the order of creation in Genesis:
Day 1: Light and Darkness Day 2: Earth's atmosphere Day 3: Land and Sea / vegetation Day 4: Stars <------------------------------------ wait what Day 5: Fish / Birds Day 6: Land animals / Humans Day 7: Rested
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
Negative, sir. First and foremost, humans didn't evolve from monkeys, which is what you claimed earlier. Humans and monkeys share a common primate ancestor.
Second, there are conflicting accounts in Genesis as to which came first, humans or animals (although they're both made on the same day):
Man before animal:
Genesis 2:18-20 New International Version (NIV) 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
Animal before man:
Genesis 1:25-26 New International Version (NIV) 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
EDIT: Even still, evolution isn't a "pro-god" theory. It's a secular, naturalistic theory. It may allow for a deist deity, but supernatural influence (either via deism or a more hands-on theism) is not going to be a formal part of the scientific theory.
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
I just have to point this out, not to be mean or anything, but there's one thing that always bugs me about the order of creation in Genesis:
Day 1: Light and Darkness Day 2: Earth's atmosphere Day 3: Land and Sea / vegetation Day 4: Stars <------------------------------------ wait what Day 5: Fish / Birds Day 6: Land animals / Humans Day 7: Rested
n the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Well shit but its the same translation so yey?
Basically people back then had no way of comprehending what the sun was so the "stars" is the creation of the separation between the moon and the sun for night and day.
and to the above you should go for whats first I guess in the bible theres a lot of talking about what just happened in the NIV during the OT.
I was pokeing fun on how evolution fit within the genesis story at the end of the day even if its not going to be treated that way in science, thus the science your move part.
On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
No true scotsman is horrendously misused all over the internet, and here's a prime example.
A "true Christian" is an actual thing. If you refer to, say, an Englishman and say he is not a true Scotsman, then you're correct. In the same way, if you refer to a nominal (by name) Christian as a true Christian, you're incorrect.
A "true Christian" may be an actual thing (as opposed to someone who doesn't believe in the tenets of Christianity), but there's enough of a spectrum for what tenets are taken more literally, more seriously, etc., what Bible verses trump the others, and other minor differences, that entire sects of Christianity with different opinions have been created. So saying that some Christians aren't really Christians because they don't take each verse or tenet to the exact level that you do, is falling victim to the fallacy.
A true Christian isn't someone who believes in the tenets of Christianity, but rather someone who is in a saved state. It's not particularly easy to tell who those people are though in every instance, I'll give you that
That's a very Protestant way of putting it, so while in certain parts of the world that might fly as a consensus definition, I feel like that idea is fundamentally incompatible with Catholicism. That said, I haven't ever been to a mass, and most of what I know about Christianity comes from either secular or Protestant sources.
Also, defining a Christian as someone who believes in the tenets of Christianity isn't very useful, because I don't think that there is any consensus as to what those tenets are.
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
I just have to point this out, not to be mean or anything, but there's one thing that always bugs me about the order of creation in Genesis:
Day 1: Light and Darkness Day 2: Earth's atmosphere Day 3: Land and Sea / vegetation Day 4: Stars <------------------------------------ wait what Day 5: Fish / Birds Day 6: Land animals / Humans Day 7: Rested
Personally I've always been amazed that people thousands of years ago actually got things so close. I mean the stars are off, but other than that you have an accurate description: Big Bang -> Earth/atmosphere -> plants -> fish -> mammals -> humans. That is startlingly accurate.
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
I just have to point this out, not to be mean or anything, but there's one thing that always bugs me about the order of creation in Genesis:
Day 1: Light and Darkness Day 2: Earth's atmosphere Day 3: Land and Sea / vegetation Day 4: Stars <------------------------------------ wait what Day 5: Fish / Birds Day 6: Land animals / Humans Day 7: Rested
Personally I've always been amazed that people thousands of years ago actually got things so close. I mean the stars are off, but other than that you have an accurate description: Big Bang -> Earth/atmosphere -> plants -> fish -> mammals -> humans. That is startlingly accurate.
Well there have been countless Creation myths of varying correctness, and it's obviously a given that the earth had to exist before things could live on it... so flipping a coin would get you plants before animals correct (instead of animals before plants) lol. The rest is filled in by you, trying to make it fit better (e.g., the big bang isn't actually mentioned, the order of many groups of animals is either ambiguous or switched (one verse has humans before animals, another has animals before humans), there's certainly no mention of actual evolution between those animals, let alone over a long period of time, etc.). But we tend to do that when we want an older story to fit in with new discoveries; it's rather natural.
I'd like to bow out of the religion conversation for obvious reasons. Have a good night everyone
Genesis 2:18-20 New International Version (NIV) 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
Where did you come up with this idea that this says "Man before animal"? If you finished verse 20, you'd read "But for Adam no suitable helper was found." Why is that important?
Because this isn't the story of the creation of the animals, but the story of Adam naming the animals, and then God creating Eve. You are interpreting the text as saying that God is creating the animals as the "helper" for him, but there's a reason the verses are divided the way they are in this chapter. Each verse is a separate thought(Not the right word, but I can't think of the word I want to say here)
I highly doubt those survey results, considering like 80% of the US is christian or so (iirc; simple google would fix)
also considering like half of US is explicitly anti-gay (let's say at least 40%, otherwise the various ballot initiatives and all would pass easily)
I doubt a random christian on the street would describe himself as anti-gay as first choice of words. Or judgemental. Maybe hypocritical (them catholics using birth control!)
"If you could use one word to describe Christians, what would you use?"
The top three were anti-gay, judgemental, and hypocritical. Other words that were used were hateful, condescending, and excluding.
The saddest part of it all was that the word which describes the entirety of Christianity was no where at the top of the list; love
How the fuck does the word "love" describe Christianity? I mean, I recognize that as a christian, you may be disappointed in the fact that many people think lowly of your religion and I would argue that in many regards, it's unfair to describe christians as generally anti-gay, judgmental or hypocritical... but it's even more wrong to describe them as "love" (??? how can you describe people as love anyway, loving perhaps?).
So, maybe the people who answered the question are a little bit wrong, maybe the guy who gave the lecture is full of shit (that's actually most likely the case) and those words were not the most common and he was just trying to get you kids riled up against the big bad adversity, and lastly maybe you need to consider the fact that "LOVE" is only what they tell you your religion is all about.
They tell muslims that their religion is that of peace, but that's fundamentally incorrect and it shows in their scripture, even if we disregard the violent wordly events that are done in the name of Islam. The same thing can be said about Christianity. You guys dance about with your super positive pep talks about how Jesus forgives you for being a shitty individual who sins, and God loves you specifically because you're awesome and special, and it's a religion is PEACEFUL.
Actions speak louder than words though. In reality, Christians are no less flawed than the rest of us heathens and misguided ungodly folks. Many Christians ARE needlessly anti-gay for religious and dumb traditional reasons. Many Christians are judgmental even though the scripture tells them not to be, because some of them are so ****ing proud to be in the "right" religion, and some of them are hypocritical, condescending and excluding.
Much more so than they are loving. Relatively few Christians go out of their way to share love. They just say they do because it's better for PR than what the literalists do.
And forgive me for perhaps coming off as rude but it's quite clear to me that love is a characteristic of Christianity in title only. In other words, the great Christians are not any more representative of Christianity than the terrible ones.
But I want to say it again: The speaker was lying about the survey, or his methodology was flawed to completely mad levels.
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
I just have to point this out, not to be mean or anything, but there's one thing that always bugs me about the order of creation in Genesis:
Day 1: Light and Darkness Day 2: Earth's atmosphere Day 3: Land and Sea / vegetation Day 4: Stars <------------------------------------ wait what Day 5: Fish / Birds Day 6: Land animals / Humans Day 7: Rested
The fact that the Genesis account talks about the "let there be light" before there is any actual material thing that can provide the light is something that theologians were aware of and puzzled over since very early on in the history of Christianity. It's one of the many things that caused many central figures of Christian thought to conclude that much of scripture just can't be read literally. Augustine delves into a sustained exegesis of Genesis in his The Literal Meaning of Genesis where he essentially lays out that the "literal" meaning of Genesis isn't actually literal.
And something like this
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
Approaches both evolution and reads the Genesis account pretty incorrectly. Evolution isn't about how "humans evolved from animals" - it's about a constant process of all life without an ordained teleology. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but it reads as if you're positing that humans aren't "animals" or as if humanity is the point of evolution. And if we are to follow the Genesis account, Adam was created in a way that was utterly different from the rest of God's creation in such a way that for Christianity the anthropological statement is that mankind was made in the image and likeness of God. Simply stating the sequence of creation in Genesis as if it is congruous with evolution is just wrong.
EPT
