-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S
If it was a small matter and completely irrelevant to the thread, then why mention it? I know why...What you did was start your post off by pointing that out in an attempt to make yourself look superior in intelligence, hoping that it would make people more likely to buy into your weak and unbiblical argument. Pointing out all the grammar mistakes in the world wont make your view any less silly.
I have showed already where SCRIPTURE clearly interprets Genesis literally.
I have showed already where SCRIPTURE clearly interprets Genesis literally.
T
Showing me where someone in the New Testament referred to something in the Old Testament is by no means "proof" that they believed the OT stories to be literal.
Have you never talked to your friends about some television show or movie you saw? For example, "Hey, that's just like Joey and Rachel in that episode of 'Friends,'".... or "Wow, that reminds me of what Peter Parker told his girlfriend, before she knew he was Spiderman...."
When your friends say these things to you, do you think your friends are confused, and can't tell reality from fiction? Do you say, "Woah, friend, beware, those are just stories you're referring to. They never really happened, you know." Of course not. That's because it is mutually understood that both of you KNOW that you're talking about a story.
In the same way, no one had to "explain" that Jesus was using poetic speech when he referred to the OT stories. His audience, the disciples, the scribes and the pharisees, certainly the priests and even the Samaratans understood, the same way you understand -- as does any person in our society -- that Elmo is a child's character, or that Dilbert is seen on the comics page. These are simply known facts.
4,000 years from now, it is possible that some archaeologists studying 20th-21st Century America will try to track down where, exactly, is Waldo, and why was he missing? Some may speculate about his disappearance being sinister while others will insist he simply chose to run away. This is how ridiculous your claims are about the literalness of Genesis. Seriously. It's like someone in the distant future reading a Dr. Seuss book and wondering why Foxes no longer wear Socks, Poodles no longer eat Noodles, and where all the Tweedle Beatles went.
Reading Genesis as if it were literal is like reading Harry Potter and thinking you could make a broomstick fly if you just reach out your hand and say "up." Honestly.
Have you never talked to your friends about some television show or movie you saw? For example, "Hey, that's just like Joey and Rachel in that episode of 'Friends,'".... or "Wow, that reminds me of what Peter Parker told his girlfriend, before she knew he was Spiderman...."
When your friends say these things to you, do you think your friends are confused, and can't tell reality from fiction? Do you say, "Woah, friend, beware, those are just stories you're referring to. They never really happened, you know." Of course not. That's because it is mutually understood that both of you KNOW that you're talking about a story.
In the same way, no one had to "explain" that Jesus was using poetic speech when he referred to the OT stories. His audience, the disciples, the scribes and the pharisees, certainly the priests and even the Samaratans understood, the same way you understand -- as does any person in our society -- that Elmo is a child's character, or that Dilbert is seen on the comics page. These are simply known facts.
4,000 years from now, it is possible that some archaeologists studying 20th-21st Century America will try to track down where, exactly, is Waldo, and why was he missing? Some may speculate about his disappearance being sinister while others will insist he simply chose to run away. This is how ridiculous your claims are about the literalness of Genesis. Seriously. It's like someone in the distant future reading a Dr. Seuss book and wondering why Foxes no longer wear Socks, Poodles no longer eat Noodles, and where all the Tweedle Beatles went.
Reading Genesis as if it were literal is like reading Harry Potter and thinking you could make a broomstick fly if you just reach out your hand and say "up." Honestly.
T
Why mention it? As a service to you.
"Do unto others..."
I appreciate it when my spelling and/or grammatical errors are pointed out to me, so that I can better myself. In fact, if you frequent these boards, you may have seen me thank a fellow poster for pointing out a spelling error, or any other mistake as such. Any chance to improve, in my opinion, is welcome. If you don't feel the same way, then I am sorry for you. I will try to remember when responding to your posts not to offer such corrections.
Umm, no. I have no interest in trying to make myself look superior in intelligence. I don't really care to compare myself against anyone else, but only try to better myself. Am I more learned today than I was last year? 5 years ago? That is the only yardstick I care about.
And even if I were trying to compare myself to you, I'm not sure that being aware of proper English grammar is a reasonable measure for intelligence. English is hard. It's a mish-mash of a bunch of different languages, and, from what I've heard, it's one of the most difficult languages to learn as an adult. I know many people on these boards are speaking English as a 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) language. I don't know if that is the case for you, but I just assume that whomever I am speaking to is not an idiot, but rather gets tripped up, understandably, by the many silly little grammar rules in English. By correcting you, I'm not saying I'm superior in intelligence, just that I happen to be lucky enough to have been raised by a family who spoke English almost exclusively, so I learned the language and its crazy grammar rules from a young age.
Like I said, I will try to remember that you don't care to be corrected in the future.
I have no interest in what people "buy into." If they have read Scripture with an open mind, they already know I am correct. If they have already been brainwashed into believing that Genesis is supposed to be literal, then there is nothing I can do to convince them otherwise.
And stating your side in absolutely perfect grammar won't make your argument any more true.
And I have already soundly debunked that interpretation.
"Do unto others..."
I appreciate it when my spelling and/or grammatical errors are pointed out to me, so that I can better myself. In fact, if you frequent these boards, you may have seen me thank a fellow poster for pointing out a spelling error, or any other mistake as such. Any chance to improve, in my opinion, is welcome. If you don't feel the same way, then I am sorry for you. I will try to remember when responding to your posts not to offer such corrections.
Umm, no. I have no interest in trying to make myself look superior in intelligence. I don't really care to compare myself against anyone else, but only try to better myself. Am I more learned today than I was last year? 5 years ago? That is the only yardstick I care about.
And even if I were trying to compare myself to you, I'm not sure that being aware of proper English grammar is a reasonable measure for intelligence. English is hard. It's a mish-mash of a bunch of different languages, and, from what I've heard, it's one of the most difficult languages to learn as an adult. I know many people on these boards are speaking English as a 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) language. I don't know if that is the case for you, but I just assume that whomever I am speaking to is not an idiot, but rather gets tripped up, understandably, by the many silly little grammar rules in English. By correcting you, I'm not saying I'm superior in intelligence, just that I happen to be lucky enough to have been raised by a family who spoke English almost exclusively, so I learned the language and its crazy grammar rules from a young age.
Like I said, I will try to remember that you don't care to be corrected in the future.
I have no interest in what people "buy into." If they have read Scripture with an open mind, they already know I am correct. If they have already been brainwashed into believing that Genesis is supposed to be literal, then there is nothing I can do to convince them otherwise.
And stating your side in absolutely perfect grammar won't make your argument any more true.
And I have already soundly debunked that interpretation.
T
Okay, here's an exercise:
Prove to me, using ONLY quotes from any of the Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis, that "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" is fiction.
Prove that this did not actually happen? Using ONLY words from these books, prove that there is NOT a magic Wardrobe in some British Professor's house that has a portal to another world where animals can talk and time in this world seems to stand still when 30 years have passed over there.
And if you try to tell me that it's just impossible, I'll tell you that you're just too weak-minded to believe that Aslan has that power, and you can't accept how great Aslan is.
I submit that the evidence of the allegorical nature of Genesis is exactly the same as your evidence for the fictional nature of Lewis' aforementioned and most wonderful children's book. Just open the book and read it.
Anyone who recognizes Lewis as fiction, but not Genesis, is being dishonest to themselves, and anyone who teaches such a difference is being dishonest to others.
Prove to me, using ONLY quotes from any of the Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis, that "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" is fiction.
Prove that this did not actually happen? Using ONLY words from these books, prove that there is NOT a magic Wardrobe in some British Professor's house that has a portal to another world where animals can talk and time in this world seems to stand still when 30 years have passed over there.
And if you try to tell me that it's just impossible, I'll tell you that you're just too weak-minded to believe that Aslan has that power, and you can't accept how great Aslan is.
I submit that the evidence of the allegorical nature of Genesis is exactly the same as your evidence for the fictional nature of Lewis' aforementioned and most wonderful children's book. Just open the book and read it.
Anyone who recognizes Lewis as fiction, but not Genesis, is being dishonest to themselves, and anyone who teaches such a difference is being dishonest to others.
S
I think the New Testament makes itself clear on this matter. I dont really feel the need to take it any further. I'm confident most people can clearly see that Genesis is a literal account. Those who dont see it that way are just trying to force fallible, secular science into the bible.
People who try and fit mans flawed scientific theories into the bible remind me of kids playing with one of those shape sorter toys, they try to fit a square shaped piece into a triangle shaped hole. No matter how hard you try, it just wont fit.
People who try and fit mans flawed scientific theories into the bible remind me of kids playing with one of those shape sorter toys, they try to fit a square shaped piece into a triangle shaped hole. No matter how hard you try, it just wont fit.
T
I should have said ALL the books are fictional. I didnt know how many there were because I'm not that familiar with the Chronicles of Narnia 
Genesis is exactly the same way. I honestly don't understand why so many people don't get it. All those quotes you listed, yes, New Testament people who referred to Genesis. Cool. Jesus knew the Old Testament. That's jolly good. But it doesn't prove that Jesus believed it was literal. It just proves that Jesus knew his Scripture.
Paul referring to Adam doesn't prove that Paul believed Adam was a literal person and not a mythical character any more than you saying, "I wonder if Santa will bring me anything this year" implies that you believe that Santa Claus is real. Of course, everyone who heard you say the above sentence would know what you meant, and would know that you don't really expect a fat man in a red suit to show up at your home in December. They would have a collective understanding of what you meant. In the same way, when Paul refers to Adam, no one listening to him believed for a second that he believed there actually was a real person named "The Man." They knew he was referring to a mythical character. They all understood. Even the early Christians understood. Why can't you?
Every one of those Scripture verses you quoted could just as easily be used as "proof" that Scripture is intended to be taken figuratively. There is no evidence to the contrary within the quotes that says "and by the way we mean this literally, and not metaphorically." It comes from the context. And as obvious as the context of Jesus words, "I am the vine and you are the branches" is CLEARLY methphor, so, too, the words of Genesis, "God separated the darkness, and the darkness He called Night, and the Light he called Day" is so obviously a myth. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. It was obvious to the Hebrew. It was obvious to the Scribes. It was obvious to the Popes for the first eon-and-a-half when Rome led the church. It was obvious after the Schism, when laypeople were again encouraged to read Scripture for themselves. It continued to be obvious until two nit-wit evangelicals decided to push the issue, only AFTER Darwin had established his theory, and they wanted to challenge him, "prove" that he was wrong. But the only way they could do that was to claim that Genesis was literal. So they went against thousands of years of tradition, scholarship, and obvious text just out of spite in their backwards-ness and anger at science, the same way the Roman Church hated that Galileo challenged them (even though he didn't), they decided to flip-flop the Bible into something it had never been before, into a history and biology textbook.
That is not how God wrote it. That is not what God intended. That is not what God's people understood for thousands of years. And now, all of a sudden, simply out of fear and anger and tilting and windmills, a whole 5-6 generations of Christians are completely confused.
(BTW, there's another one of those fictional references ... I know that Don Quixote is fiction ... referring to him does not imply otherwise.)
S
So I guess Jesus descended from "mythical" characters.
Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Luk 3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
Luk 3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
Luk 3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Luk 3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
Luk 3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Luk 3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
Luk 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Luk 3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
Luk 3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
Luk 3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
Luk 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Luk 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Mat 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
Mat 1:3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
Mat 1:4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
Mat 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
Mat 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
Mat 1:7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
Mat 1:8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
Mat 1:9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
Mat 1:10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
Mat 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
Mat 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
Mat 1:13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
Mat 1:14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
Mat 1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Mat 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Luk 3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
Luk 3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
Luk 3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Luk 3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
Luk 3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Luk 3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
Luk 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Luk 3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
Luk 3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
Luk 3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
Luk 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Luk 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Mat 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
Mat 1:3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
Mat 1:4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
Mat 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
Mat 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
Mat 1:7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
Mat 1:8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
Mat 1:9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
Mat 1:10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
Mat 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
Mat 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
Mat 1:13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
Mat 1:14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
Mat 1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Mat 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
G
Maybe there's supposed to be a little faith shown from us, our measure is to grow, you know , in God's grand hope for our understanding, there some things that will be UNSEEN,hence, be faith tests, like James 1:3,6, and Hebrews 11:1.
Afterall, God does say in scripture doesn't He that mens' minds can't truthfully comprehend all His KNOWN UNDERSTANDING and tHERE IS MYSTERY , many, many, references in the bible, that we MUST understand by faith, like 'By grace we have,been saved by FAITH.....' Eph. 2:8,9.
God knows all, but no human does know all. Genesis is not literal?? God didn't do what Paul and other God-ordained writers said God did in New Testament?? I guess since I wasn't there when God made things I have only the truth of The Word of God as proof. And, did I get that right? Genesis is part of The Truth? The FIGURATIVE TRUTH? Not. Lol.
Why not have faith in God's 1000+ points of Truthful reference that point to His shining Light. Does it take a miracle to believe , proof ? Faith?
That's OK if God's great revelation has not been revealed to you, everything, as He leads, comes to His elect (all who were once sinners and were STILL loved but chose Him and became 'sheep' Loved
, in God's grand hope for our understanding, there some things that will be UNSEEN,hence, be faith tests, like James 1:3,6, and Hebrews 11:1. Afterall, God does say in scripture doesn't He that mens' minds can't truthfully comprehend all His KNOWN UNDERSTANDING and tHERE IS MYSTERY , many, many, references in the bible, that we MUST understand by faith, like 'By grace we have,been saved by FAITH.....' Eph. 2:8,9.
God knows all, but no human does know all. Genesis is not literal?? God didn't do what Paul and other God-ordained writers said God did in New Testament?? I guess since I wasn't there when God made things I have only the truth of The Word of God as proof. And, did I get that right? Genesis is part of The Truth? The FIGURATIVE TRUTH? Not. Lol.
Why not have faith in God's 1000+ points of Truthful reference that point to His shining Light. Does it take a miracle to believe , proof ? Faith?
That's OK if God's great revelation has not been revealed to you, everything, as He leads, comes to His elect (all who were once sinners and were STILL loved but chose Him and became 'sheep' Loved
C
the front and back books are both largely allegory, for example, there was a tree, it may or may not have been in a literal garden, and the talking snake was symbolism for satan.
Also, there will be a literal last day, there may or may not be an actual rider on a white horse,and the 7 headed dragon is symbolism for...something.
Also, there will be a literal last day, there may or may not be an actual rider on a white horse,and the 7 headed dragon is symbolism for...something.
Ah yes, this debate is equivalent to "Which came first? The chicken, or the egg?"
Surprisingly, scientists have agreed that the chicken must have come first, because an egg cannot exist unless by way of a preexisting chicken.
Ironically, this puts scientists within range of theological creationism.
So... new earth or old earth?
Personally I lean toward Old Earth theory. Things such as fossils, earth layers, and studying of the universe present a strong case here. This of course, does not exclude the existence of God.
As I said in another thread, creationism and evolutionism can go hand in hand.
Here's another kick you'll like.
When you look at both stories, they are surprising alike, with the only difference that one contains God, the other a galactic fart, aka Big Bang.
So how are they similar?
Creationism:
In the beginning, there was nothing, absolute darkness, etc. etc.
Then God said "Let there be light", and so He separated light from darkness.
Then God began to separate the skies from the earth, and so far so good.
He later created Life on earth, but something was missing (the screwey humans).
The rest is history. Now let's look at the evolutionist view:
It is theorized that the universe is comprised of something called "dark matter", responsible for holding it together. Therefore, in the absence of light (suns/stars/supernovas), the universe would be indeed completely dark.
Certain conditions, whether spontaneous or not, trigger a series of events, resulting in the creation of a new star (sun), and so eventually a galaxy is born, i.e. the appearance of light out of darkness.
Debris become planets, initially hot and volcanic, and eventually as they cool, if conditions permit (such as in the case of our Earth), an atmosphere and a "sky" and land-mass are made. Heavens and earth.
And of course, if conditions permit, micro-organisms are born, leading through a long and tedious process of life's evolution. Life on Earth.
Lastly, a superior species evolves: the Human.
Place the two stories next to each other, and they are very similar, except one dates back thousands of years, the other more recent centuries.
And so once again, religion and science are not necessarily that far from each other.
Cheers.
Surprisingly, scientists have agreed that the chicken must have come first, because an egg cannot exist unless by way of a preexisting chicken.
Ironically, this puts scientists within range of theological creationism.
So... new earth or old earth?
Personally I lean toward Old Earth theory. Things such as fossils, earth layers, and studying of the universe present a strong case here. This of course, does not exclude the existence of God.
As I said in another thread, creationism and evolutionism can go hand in hand.
Here's another kick you'll like.
When you look at both stories, they are surprising alike, with the only difference that one contains God, the other a galactic fart, aka Big Bang.
So how are they similar?
Creationism:
In the beginning, there was nothing, absolute darkness, etc. etc.
Then God said "Let there be light", and so He separated light from darkness.
Then God began to separate the skies from the earth, and so far so good.
He later created Life on earth, but something was missing (the screwey humans).
The rest is history. Now let's look at the evolutionist view:
It is theorized that the universe is comprised of something called "dark matter", responsible for holding it together. Therefore, in the absence of light (suns/stars/supernovas), the universe would be indeed completely dark.
Certain conditions, whether spontaneous or not, trigger a series of events, resulting in the creation of a new star (sun), and so eventually a galaxy is born, i.e. the appearance of light out of darkness.
Debris become planets, initially hot and volcanic, and eventually as they cool, if conditions permit (such as in the case of our Earth), an atmosphere and a "sky" and land-mass are made. Heavens and earth.
And of course, if conditions permit, micro-organisms are born, leading through a long and tedious process of life's evolution. Life on Earth.
Lastly, a superior species evolves: the Human.
Place the two stories next to each other, and they are very similar, except one dates back thousands of years, the other more recent centuries.
And so once again, religion and science are not necessarily that far from each other.
Cheers.