How literal?

[Arikay]

Many creationists say they take the bible literally, but I was wondering how literal do they take it.

Creationists, do you believe that:

-Hares (basically rabbits) chew their own cud?

"LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."

-Bats are birds?

"LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomina- tion: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapw- ing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the ea- gle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cor- morant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. "

-Snakes eat dirt?

"GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life"


Im sure some of these have been mentioned before, but im just wondering, when a creationist says they take the bible as gods literal inspired word and it must be fact, if they take everything literally or just some of it?

-Ari

 

[Follower of Christ]

Oh boy this looks familiar.


the first I know nothing of nor care about.



the bird thing is a translation error.
The hebrew ''oph'' means ''covered with wings'', ANY flying creature would fit.


The dust thing does NOT mean Genesis 1 is not literal, NICE TRY

 

[webboffin]

Nice troll

 

[L'Anatra]

4th April 2003 at 12:01 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #2
Oh boy this looks familiar.

Maybe so, but could someone answer the question?

 

[Arikay]

LoL, so, im not allowed to ask a valid question of creationism.

Ok.

 

[Follower of Christ]

4th April 2003 at 12:01 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #2

Oh boy this looks familiar.


the first I know nothing of nor care about.



the bird thing is a translation error.
The hebrew ''oph'' means ''covered with wings'', ANY flying creature would fit.


The dust thing does NOT mean Genesis 1 is not literal, NICE TRY

 

[Arikay]

Um, you didnt answer any of my questions.

So, the bible has translation errors?

The dust thing does NOT mean Genesis 1 is not literal, NICE TRY

Really, why not?

Please answer my questions.

3rd April 2003 at 09:01 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #2

Oh boy this looks familiar.


the first I know nothing of nor care about.



the bird thing is a translation error.
The hebrew ''oph'' means ''covered with wings'', ANY flying creature would fit.


The dust thing does NOT mean Genesis 1 is not literal, NICE TRY

 

[webboffin]

4th April 2003 at 05:22 AM Arikay said this in Post #7

Um, you didnt answer any of my questions.

So, the bible has translation errors?

The dust thing does NOT mean Genesis 1 is not literal, NICE TRY

Really, why not?

Please answer my questions.

Nope, cos you are talking C.R.A.P.

 

[Arikay]

Thanks for that remark web. You still arent answering my question.

 

[Follower of Christ]

the first I know nothing ......



the bird thing is a translation error.
The hebrew ''oph'' means ''covered with wings'', ANY flying creature would fit.

 

[Arikay]

Again, that doesnt answer the question, the question is:

If you take the bible literally do you also believe these things?

If the bird bat is a translation mistake, how come its in the bible? Why did they make a mistake in the translation of gods infalible word?

3rd April 2003 at 09:33 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #10

the first I know nothing ......



the bird thing is a translation error.
The hebrew ''oph'' means ''covered with wings'', ANY flying creature would fit.

 

[webboffin]

If you put your question a bit better than I might, I could do the same to scientific theories that are taken literally by some but I rather debate it and I even ask my own questions about science that I find harder to grasp and very inquisitive and like the well thought responses. Your thread is a troll to dig at Christians - probably something you cut and pasted from a website as I don't think you went through the Bible to check up on it.

 

[Follower of Christ]

4th April 2003 at 12:39 AM Arikay said this in Post #11

Why did they make a mistake in the translation of gods infalible word?

This is what I was waiting for.

I will tell you what I told the atheists.

Learn a little about translation.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

4th April 2003 at 12:40 AM webboffin said this in Post #12

If you put your question a bit better than I might, I could do the same to scientific theories that are taken literally by some but I rather debate it and I even ask my own questions about science that I find harder to grasp and very inquisitive and like the well thought responses. Your thread is a troll to dig at Christians - probably something you cut and pasted from a website as I don't think you went through the Bible to check up on it.

I think Arikay has raised some perfectly valid points. How "literal" does the Bible have to be taken? I've frequently seen the argument from Biblical literalists that if you interpret one part of the Bible as figurative, then what's to stop you from doing the same with the rest? This seems to be the main crux of the YEC standpoint.

But, if they are not taking other parts of the Bible literally (because it is invalidated by real-world evidence), then how is that different from a theistic evolutionist?

 

[Arikay]

Thanks again web for your interesting but semi pointless comments.

If it would please you:

Rabbits: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Lev/Lev011.html

Bats: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Lev/Lev011.html
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Deu/Deu014.html

snake: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen003.html

3rd April 2003 at 09:40 PM webboffin said this in Post #12

If you put your question a bit better than I might, I could do the same to scientific theories that are taken literally by some but I rather debate it and I even ask my own questions about science that I find harder to grasp and very inquisitive and like the well thought responses. Your thread is a troll to dig at Christians - probably something you cut and pasted from a website as I don't think you went through the Bible to check up on it.

 

[Arikay]

again, you ignored my question. Please answer it.

I know a bit about translations.

I also know that YECs claim that the bible is complete truth.

3rd April 2003 at 09:44 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #13


This is what I was waiting for.

I will tell you what I told the atheists.

Learn a little about translation.

 

[webboffin]

same as your pointless thread.

YEC is not in my opinion correct but I don't try and stain all Christianity because of what some believe.

 

[Arikay]

Ok web, then please stop posting in my thread, Its a serious question and you seem to want to spam it, or something.

 

[Follower of Christ]

4th April 2003 at 12:53 AM Arikay said this in Post #16

again, you ignored my question. Please answer it.

I know a bit about translations.

I also know that YECs claim that the bible is complete truth.

I think you're lying.
If you did know anything of translation, you would not have even have been goofy enough to bring up the ''bird' thing as You would have looked up the hebrew ''oph'' as any normal translator would have done.

In doing this you would have concluded that the word includes ''flying creatures'' of any sort.


H5775
òåó
‛ôph
BDB Definition:
1) flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
1a) fowl, birds
1b) winged insects

 

[Arikay]

Web, im not staining christianity, so um, yeah.