25
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 308:
Line 308: + +
Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally? (view source)
Revision as of 12:57, August 5, 2008
, 12:57, August 5, 2008no edit summary
So if I'm to understand what some here are arguing correctly, are we to assume that Noah literally looked into God's eye and found some big heap of grace? [[User:Quid|Quid]]
So if I'm to understand what some here are arguing correctly, are we to assume that Noah literally looked into God's eye and found some big heap of grace? [[User:Quid|Quid]]
:Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
I watched a programme last night by Richard Dawkins, the prince of atheism, on his love of evolution, who basically pushed evolution as fact and proof that there is no God. Taking his personal beliefs as proven fact. Why is it that some scientists think that nothing is beyond them? If you say the theory of evolution is a proven fact doesnt all this just prove that the first chapters of Genesis are not strictly literal. Big deal, so what? Is doesnt dispove the existence of God. Is this important anyway? as long as you believe in God and in Jesus Christ. regards, Adam