Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution

How do they plan on delivering it to him

 

I dare to say that many of them may have a chance to personally apologize in fire below one day.

 

I believe there was a good chance Darwin was saved. He studied for the ministry at Christ's Church, in Cambridge. His young daughter, Annie died, and that may have been the incident that shook his faith, if he ever had it. There are reports of a death bed conversion, but I couldn't find any credible sources.

 

They will probably deliver it in person--in hell.

 

Evolution and the Bible are compatible and many Christians believe God may have existed for all time but used evolution to create life. Only non-christian evolutionists are going to hell.

 

LOL, I was thinking something like that too.

 

Belief in evolution is non belief in scritpure and God. If a person can not bring themselves to believe one of the very first things God tells us about Himself in scripture, how can they believe any of it. All or nothing.

 

I've often wondered the same thing! If the specific language used in Genesis is so muddled as to lend itself to an evolutionist interpretation, why should the remainder be any clearer?

Same logic, IMHO, as saying that Jesus was "A good man, a prophet, a good spiritual leader, yada, yada, yada."

Considering the claims He made for Himself, He was either a con artist, a mad-man, or who He said He is.

People with this mindset are seriously flawed in their logic; both in the "Jesus Identity" and the Genesis story

 

I agree, if Gen. 1-11 isn't true, what is true??

But some known Christian teachers didn't go along with Gen., such as B. B. Warfield, Charles Hodge and many who hold to the Gap and many who fill churches today.

 

The deathbed conversion never happened. It is one of the many Chirstian urban legends.

 

I have learned about these compromises before too, but I didn't realize how extensive they were.

 

Funnily enough, the talk at our church on Sunday evening was looking at different explantions for the beginning of the world and the speaker was a church member who works as a scientist, explaining why Evolution through God is credible and why he doesn't believe in some of the literal creationist theories. One problem he pointed out with Young Earth Creationism is that the Earth appears to scientists (whether believers or non-believers) to be very old and therefore unlikely to be only around 10,000 years old.

Therefore, if God has deliberately made the Earth look much older than it actually is, then he is dishonest and that is not the God (or the Jesus) we encounter in the Bible. You could make the argument if that you believe God is dishonest then how can you trust the rest of the Bible? This is not to say that Adam & Eve did not exist, it just means the period of creation could have lasted longer than a literal six days with one rest day. Six days in God's time could be very different from six days in our time. Plus (an additional thought from a friend): if God has no beginning, then that means there was an infinite, un-measurable amount of time between God's existence and the creation of Adam - therefore an infinite amount of time for the process of Evolution to take place.

He did print some detailed notes on the topic, so if one wishes, I can get a copy off him and put some of his points on here.

 

God set the time frame for us,
Gen 1:
5God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
8b
So the evening and the morning were the second day.
13So the evening and the morning were the third day.
16Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
23So the evening and the morning were the fifth day
31
So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Morning and evening, sun rules day, moon rules night, thats 1 day for 1 day according to gen 1.
And if it weren't 1 day, then the law about the sabbath makes no sense at all, because God didn't work 6 days and rest, He worked millions of years and then rested.
Why do christians have such a hard time believeing God. And if you question the very first thing He tells you about Himself in His book, then you can not throughly believe anything else, you failed at the first thing. If any of it is questionable, then all of it is questionable. How much might God have lied about in the entirety of scripture?
It's either true, or it isn't, and if it isn't, none of it is, and we will all persih in our sins.

 

Did you know that the same word that means day in genesis also means Eon?

 

The problem is, how do you explain the fact that most scientists (including Christian scientists) believe that the Earth is millions of years old. While it is possible that God could have made the Earth look older than it is, and fossil remains older than they are, I just don't see why he would. It is dishonest and Jesus says he is ''the way, the truth and the life''.

 

So God worked for 6 eons, and rested during the 7th eon, then the creation could not be used to support the sabbath day of rest, unless mna owrks 6 eons and rests durting the 7th.
See, scripturally it makes no sense. Context, complete context of all of scripture.

 

So to you, the conflict is, man''s word against God's word, and man's word causes you to doubt God's word.
I do not for one minute believe God is dishonest or made anything look older then it is. I think man's opinions and and proofs are flawed, falable man can not compete with an infalalble God for truth. If theres any conflict, it is with man, not God, man is the one wrong, never God. Science does not ever trump God.

Unless you truly doubt God.

 

It would have been dishonest if he hadn't told us what he did...

But he tells us in Gen. 1.
The problem is, people don't want to believe what God told us.

 

It is possible though that God could have put the seventh day of rest in, to encourage people to take a rest once every seven days, and also to encourage worship for that seventh day. If God is outside of human time, then it is difficult to define 'six days' in God's time.