For example according to a simple view have a look at big bang which is only a theory. It says that the whole vast universe of which we have seen less that 2% with all our telescopes and other things came out of a very very very tiny particle of infinite density which could not even be seen. So literally speaking everything so vast came out of something which could not even be seen. and literally saying its “everything came out of nothing” because there was nothing to be seen really..(According to science seeing is believing) And creation in the BIble says that God spoke the worlds into existence which is also that he created everything from nothing. So as far as I can see Both of them say that same thing that everything came from literally nothing (Big Bang). So I can’t see the point where people who believe science should say that we who believe in the creation are stupid for our beliefs when its really not different from theirs. I don’t know if it looks foolish to some but honestly if you think from a clear point of view Bing bang looks equally if not more incredible.

Forgive me if I be a bit more stupid and lets take the case of evolution. Scientists and evolutionists say that its not possible that a huge number of changes can happen in one go but a very small chance change and happen in a million years and hence its those millions of chance changes in the billions of years which have brought about the present world. So something as complex as a human being was developed by chance and a series of chance mutations. But let’s tells scientists whats the chance or .. take some iron converting itself into a truck (which is very well designed yet less complex than even the smallest bacteria) given a million years and eveolutionists would laugh. But why? Cant a piece of steel undergo a million changes in billion years and come out as a finished truck? huh? and besides another thing which scientists say is that the conditions in other planets are not favourable for life. yet they say that the single celled organisms which made it to earth adapted to the climate and environment on earth and so it mutated. But why did not any single celled organism not adapt itself to any other planet. After all in the solar system itself we have other 2 – 3 bodies which have ice and water. I think these are things which even a person who believes in evolution and big band think about.

Sorry if I were a bit foolish here

1. WHY are so many people tempted to take Genesis as metaphor?

2. If the various component parts of the message are untrue, how can the final message be true?

I understand that the first three chapters of Genesis present themselves differently– as history. Part of Jesus’ genealogy, ultimately. But I don’t think it changes the message and meaning of Jesus to say that some of that history might not be 100% spot-on, and even that the first three chapters of Genesis are basically myth. The *point* remains the same: we are all fallen sinners in need of redemption, and Jesus provides that redemption. And yes, I’m suggesting that parts of the Bible are more reliable than others. 66 different books here. And no, I don’t think it makes me or anyone else less saved to assert such a thing.

But don’t take my word for it. No less a biblical literalist that J. Gresham Machen writes (in Christianity and Liberalism, chapter 3, paragraph 15):

“There are many men in the modern Church who thus accept the central message of the Bible and yet believe that the message has come to us merely on the authority of trustworthy witnesses unaided in their literary work by any supernatural guidance of the Spirit of God. There are many who believe that the Bible is right at the central point, in its account of the redeeming work of Christ, and yet believe that it contains many errors. Such men are not really liberals, but Christians; because they have accepted as true the message upon which Christianity depends. A great gulf separates them from those who reject the supernatural act of God with which Christianity stands or falls.”

It makes him a wrong Christian, if he’s even a Christian in the first place.

“I was always under the impression that the sacrifice of Christ was the basic foundation of all genuine Christianity. At least, that’s what the Bible says.”

You argue that one part of the bible can be taken metaphorically, but then argue that the bible in other places is authoritative. Which is it? By what criteria has God handed down for us to decide? Our wisdom?

I mean, when you tell someone about the gospel, do you simply say “Jesus died for your sins…” or do you start by explaining what sin is, where it comes from, etc.?

I don’t know about where you live (and I’m learning that a lot of Yankees come from a ‘Christianized’ upbringing where the word “sin” still means “doing bad stuff”, which is closer than the Canadians I know!), but where I’m from, the response to a gospel message I always hear is “So what? Jesus was stupid and he died. What does that have to do with me? Sucks to be him!”

If people don’t understand why they NEED Christ, they won’t understand the gospel at all. That’s one reason why Genesis is important…though I can think of at least 2 more if you want.

Also:
“As Christians, we believe the Bible is truth revealed to us by God, who is the true Creator of the universe. That belief is the basic foundation of all genuine Christianity.”

I strongly disagree with this. I was always under the impression that the sacrifice of Christ was the basic foundation of all genuine Christianity. At least, that’s what the Bible says.