was the creation story necessarily about earth

[juvenissun]

There has to be an appropriate fit between the actual thing and what it is compared with. That is why we say "strong as a lion" not "strong as a mouse" (unless we mean it as a joke).

So even if one thinks the creation accounts are metaphorical, they are still accounts of the creation of the reality we call earth and its inhabitants. Even the heavenly bodies are described as we view them from earth. The sun, for example, is not a "great light" viewed from outside the solar system.

Hey, that is my position of literal explanation.
But, it is OK, I am certainly glad that you also accept it.
It seems we shot down a thorny problem.

Back to the OP: We may like to think it is highly likely because of the statistics. But I don't think there is another human-like civilization in this universe.

The UFO problem opened up a little bit more recently (particularly in China). It would be quite a drama to watch, probably sometime in the next year. Or, in the terrible year of 2012.

 

[juvenissun]

No, this is a consequence of someone reading psuedoscience/pseudohistory into the Bible. It's the same as creationism, except with different subject matter.

Please elaborate a little bit on: "reading ____ into the Bible". How is different from "getting _____ from the Bible"?

Whatever the blank is, it should be something which is neither literally nor figuratively expressed in the Bible. If so, how do you it is acceptable or not?

Someone reads the Bible and understands something. How could YOU, say that the understanding is not "in" the Bible? You can make comment on the understanding. But I don't think it is proper to say that the understanding does not come from the Bible.

 

[granpa]

No, it is in your OP.

if you wont bother to state what you mean then dont be surprised if I dont bother to answer you.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Please elaborate a little bit on: "reading ____ into the Bible". How is different from "getting _____ from the Bible"?

Whatever the blank is, it should be something which is neither literally nor figuratively expressed in the Bible. If so, how do you it is acceptable or not?

Reading something into the Bible, or any text or saying, is starting with a presupposed notion and then making the text work to support it. Creationism does this. It's called scientific concordism.

Someone reads the Bible and understands something. How could YOU, say that the understanding is not "in" the Bible? You can make comment on the understanding. But I don't think it is proper to say that the understanding does not come from the Bible.

Err, the same way we critique any interpretation of a work? Using the logic you seem to be proposing here, I could say the Bible tells me there is a teapot orbiting Saturn and you couldn't say I didn't get that from the Bible.

 

[juvenissun]

Reading something into the Bible, or any text or saying, is starting with a presupposed notion and then making the text work to support it. Creationism does this. It's called scientific concordism.

Err, the same way we critique any interpretation of a work? Using the logic you seem to be proposing here, I could say the Bible tells me there is a teapot orbiting Saturn and you couldn't say I didn't get that from the Bible.

Take an example:

The OP suggested that the genesis account could mean the genesis of an alien world, but not on our earth.

How do you tell if this idea was figured out first, then "read into" the Genesis, or it is because granpa read the Genesis, then come up with this idea?

If it is the latter case (most likely), would you still say that granpa "read the idea into the Bible"?

We can argue about the idea. But to say the idea is forcefully added to the Bible is simply backwards.

 

[juvenissun]

if you wont bother to state what you mean then dont be surprised if I dont bother to answer you.

OK.
I forgot what I meant anyway.