salmoneous
<img src="http://www.wdwinfo.com/dis-sponsor/image
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2005
- Messages
- 6,468
I'll give you two reasons. First, the writing style of Genesis is very different from the style of Matthew. Mathew is written in the style of an historical account. Genesis is written as a story - the equivalent of "Once upon a time" or "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away."are their christians who doubt one but not the other? If so, I'm curious to know why.
Second, we live in an earth covered in evidence that conflicts with a literally true Genesis. While it's possible God set the whole thing up as a test of our faith, I don't think He did so. I think the evidence helps us understand how we are to understand Genesis.
There is no evidence one way or the other on the miracles of Christ. Nothing tells us He did or did not feed thousands with a few fish; nothing tells us he didn't walk on water. Very different from stories about the flood.
These are interesting topic to think about - and talk over with good friends over pizza. But ultimately, I don't think it matters which way a Christian believes. When people came to Christ and asked what was most important, he said to love God and love your fellow man. He didn't say it important to interpret Genesis a particular way. What bugs me about the Church I grew up in isn't that they believe in a literal Adam and Eve. It's that they teach that believing in a literal Adam and Eve is important for all Christians.