If the Discovery Institute Listened to Me

[Subduction Zone]

My denial of what?

My denial that I'm literal? or overliteral?

My standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

My standards, as apparently you see them:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is an overliteral Bible interpretation to be contradicted.

And we are back to your inaccurate description of your standards. You do not got by "Bible says". You go by what you think that the Bible says. The two are not necessarily identical. In fact it appears that at times you do not go by what the Bible says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's why I'm not too literal.

I incorporate science into my standards, so as not to go overboard.

Once again that does not appear to be the case. You have only incorporated science when it comes to Flat Earth interpretations of the Bible. You have not incorporated science when it comes to other interpretations of the Bible. Many of your other beliefs appear to be as overboard as those of the Flat Earthers.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do not go by "Bible says". You go by what you think that the Bible says. The two are not necessarily identical. In fact it appears that at times you do not go by what the Bible says.

Even if that was true, there's a big difference between literal and overliteral.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have only incorporated science when it comes to Flat Earth interpretations of the Bible.

Thank you for admitting that I do not believe in a Flat Earth interpretation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if that was true, there's a big difference between literal and overliteral.

Since your beliefs, at least in regards to the history of the Earth, your beliefs appear to be as overliteral as those of the Flat Earthers. I know what your excuses for your beliefs are, but your standards appear to be the same as the Flat Earthers. They merely take it one tiny step further than you do. You will use science when it comes to the shape of the Earth. They won't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for admitting that I do not believe in a Flat Earth interpretation.

It also shows that you are not consistent in applying your "logic". So I would not call that a win on your part.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since your beliefs, at least in regards to the history of the Earth, your beliefs appear to be as overliteral as those of the Flat Earthers. I know what your excuses for your beliefs are, but your standards appear to be the same as the Flat Earthers. They merely take it one tiny step further than you do. You will use science when it comes to the shape of the Earth. They won't.

As I said in Post 74, I have a feeling you know the difference [about my stance on Flat Earthism].

Thank you for substantiating that feeling.

Yes ... you are correct.

I will use science when it comes to the shape of the Earth.

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x = means Earth is round
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said in Post 74, I have a feeling you know the difference [about my stance on Flat Earthism].

Thank you for substantiating that feeling.

Yes ... you are correct.

I will use science when it comes to the shape of the Earth.

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x = means Earth is round
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Then 4 and 5 contradict each other. And you have given no excuse for only going with the Bible for some of the time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then 4 and 5 contradict each other. And you have given no excuse for only going with the Bible for some of the time.

The fact is, Sub, it is you that interprets the Bible as saying the world was created flat, isn't it?

And you can't understand why others won't?

Is that correct?

 

[Bradskii]

That's why I'm not too literal.

Does everyone know that you literally believe the bible was originally written in 17th century English?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does everyone know that you literally believe the bible was originally written in 17th century English?

No.

And it's only Genesis 1-10.

Not "the bible".

 

[Bradskii]

No.

And it's only Genesis 1-10.

Not "the bible".

Ah. That makes it so much more a reasonable position. There was me thinking it was the whole bible! Don't I feel foolish...

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact is, Sub, it is you that interprets the Bible as saying the world was created flat, isn't it?

And you can't understand why others won't?

Is that correct?

Not just me. Almost everyone will agree that the language used literally portrays a flat Earth as do various descriptions of events. For example the verse of someone climbing a tall tree to see the entire Earth. That can only happen on a Flat earth. The same with Satan taking Jesus up to a high place to see all of the Earth. Visons or not they make sense only for a Flat Earth. And various literary references, the Earth cannot be moved, it is on four pillars. The stars over it like a tent. The circle of the Earth, all refer to a Flat Earth. Oh, and the Sun stopping in the sky. Stopping the Earth from rotating would be disastrous, but if one believes the Sun to be small and local, as Flat Earthers tend to believe, that event would be much easier.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not just me. Almost everyone will agree that the language used literally portrays a flat Earth as do various descriptions of events. For example the verse of someone climbing a tall tree to see the entire Earth. That can only happen on a Flat earth. The same with Satan taking Jesus up to a high place to see all of the Earth. Visons or not they make sense only for a Flat Earth. And various literary references, the Earth cannot be moved, it is on four pillars. The stars over it like a tent. The circle of the Earth, all refer to a Flat Earth. Oh, and the Sun stopping in the sky. Stopping the Earth from rotating would be disastrous, but if one believes the Sun to be small and local, as Flat Earthers tend to believe, that event would be much easier.

Just don't expect me to agree.

Overliteralism can lead to junk theology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just don't expect me to agree.

Overliteralism can lead to junk theology.

Oh I definitely agree with you on your last statement. I am just surprised a bit to hear it from you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh I definitely agree with you on your last statement. I am just surprised a bit to hear it from you.

I like the Collin's dictionary definition of "overliteral."

It says, "Literal to a fault."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like the Collin's dictionary definition of "overliteral."

It says, "Literal to a fault."

And oddly enough we agree again.

 

[VirOptimus]

Speaking of understanding science, who was it that said, "The more I study science, the more I believe in God?"

Dont care.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dont care.

Doesn't your caption say otherwise?

 

[VirOptimus]

Doesn't your caption say otherwise?

I dont care about everything and absolutely not about dishonest quote-mining.