The Demise of Evolution

roman2819 said:

Regarding your question, how should we read 'ends of the earth ", my answer is consider his very common sentence:

Men are taller than women.

Are these words literal, or factual or true or figurative ? Consider how we use it and it can enlighten you quite a bit. It is definitely relevant for interpreting Scriptures too.

I an not kidding. You can only understand well if you figure it out yourself. I can only show the way. I will also ask @Speedwell, @Kylie, @Bungle_Bear, @Astrophile, @pitabread @Warden_of_the_Storm etc to do the same.

Click to expand...

I do consider how it’s used, it’s obviously a figure of speech.

There’s absolutely no reason to think that “circle of the Earth” is any different, unless you are forced to cherry pick particular phrases and reject others arbitrarily to support your hypothesis.

Shemjaza said:

It's certainly poetic and I suppose it could be seen as more correct then most cosmologies... it doesn't help if other aspects are blatantly wrong.

Genetics, evolutionary history, the order of events in the formation of the planet, the description of moon as a "light", the lack of acknowledgement of the sun as being alike with the stars.

All in all, one literal interpretation being accurate in a sea of mistakes looks more like coincidence than evidence of providence.

Click to expand...

If you have time, think over what i said on earlier post #878. It is a very sentence we often say today.

roman2819 said:

If you have time, think over what i said on earlier post #878. It is a very sentence we often say today.

Click to expand...

Unenlightening and unconvincing.

Your thesis seems to take a single phrase literally then discard any that don't fit your narrative as figurative.

Massaging poetic and allegorical language to fit the facts after we discover them in an objective manner is trivial.

Jimmy D said:

I do consider how it’s used, it’s obviously a figure of speech.

There’s absolutely no reason to think that “circle of the Earth” is any different, unless you are forced to cherry pick particular phrases and reject others arbitrarily to support your hypothesis.

Click to expand...

I believe it is all right for the Bible to contain both figurative and literal verses. Or not suppose to? Must everything in Bible be read literally? If if does not pass the literacy test, is it invalid? Even if one say circle of earth is figurative, there are many such verses which are true enough . As well, backed by history and archaeology, Bible has hold its own against much scrutinies.

I know some people are saying bible is viable but they do not believe everything in bible is all correct. Regarding this, I discuss in post #879 if u have time to read, thanks.

It's certainly poetic and I suppose it could be seen as more correct then most cosmologies... it doesn't help if other aspects are blatantly wrong.

Genetics, evolutionary history, the order of events in the formation of the planet, the description of moon as a "light", the lack of acknowledgement of the sun as being alike with the stars.

All in all, one literal interpretation being accurate in a sea of mistakes looks more like coincidence than evidence of providence.You still agree "the earth suspend upon nothing " is accurate, thats good.

Can you give specific examples from the sea of mistakes you claim to see?

roman2819 said:

I believe it is all right for the Bible to contain both figurative and literal verses. Or not suppose to? Must everything in Bible be read literally? If if does not pass the literacy test, is it invalid? Even if one say circle of earth is figurative, there are many such verses which are true enough . As well, backed by history and archaeology, Bible has hold its own against much scrutinies.

I know some people are saying bible is viable but they do not believe everything in bible is all correct. Regarding this, I discuss in post #878 if u have time to read, thanks.

Click to expand...

I think the point people are trying to make to you is that there isn't a consistent way for you to demonstrate what is supposed to be literal and what is supposed to be figurative.

No one has been implying that the Bible is a modern forgery, it's clearly an ancient book with an ancient context... but as a literal description of the metaphysics of the universe, it has not been justified.

roman2819 said:

You still agree "the earth suspend upon nothing " is accurate, thats good.

Can you give specific examples from the sea of mistakes you claim to see?

Click to expand...

...you just cropped off:
"Genetics, evolutionary history, the order of events in the formation of the planet, the description of moon as a "light", the lack of acknowledgement of the sun as being alike with the stars."

It doesn't even describe the Earth as orbiting the Sun.

Why is this one phrase of yours literal, how can you tell from context? How do you determine when reading the Bible?

Jimmy D said:

I do consider how it’s used, it’s obviously a figure of speech.

There’s absolutely no reason to think that “circle of the Earth” is any different, unless you are forced to cherry pick particular phrases and reject others arbitrarily to support your hypothesis.

Click to expand...

Some typo earlier, i mean read post #879 if you have time

Shemjaza said:

I think the point people are trying to make to you is that there isn't a consistent way for you to demonstrate what is supposed to be literal and what is supposed to be figurative.

No one has been implying that the Bible is a modern forgery, it's clearly an ancient book with an ancient context... but as a literal description of the metaphysics of the universe, it has not been justified.

Click to expand...

You are correct to say Bible has ancient context, so people today need to bear that in mind before applying modern facts and literacy standards. Bible is also a manuscript based on ancient Mid-east and Eastern culture and religion. I explained in post #879 if you have time to vet it.

Shemjaza said:

...you just cropped off:
"Genetics, evolutionary history, the order of events in the formation of the planet, the description of moon as a "light", the lack of acknowledgement of the sun as being alike with the stars."

It doesn't even describe the Earth as orbiting the Sun.

Why is this one phrase of yours literal, how can you tell from context? How do you determine when reading the Bible?

Click to expand...

I answered a similar question before in much detail, more than a week ago, let me look for it. It should answer your question well.

roman2819 said:

Regarding your question, how should we read 'ends of the earth ", my answer is consider his very common sentence:

Men are taller than women.

Are these words literal, or factual or true or figurative ? Consider how we use it and it can enlighten you quite a bit. It is definitely relevant for interpreting Scriptures too.

I an not kidding. You can only understand well if you figure it out yourself. I can only show the way. I will also ask others who say the bible is literally wrong or figuratively vague to do the same.

Click to expand...

In other words, interpret the Bible to fit in with what we have confirmed with science.

Funny how it's always the Bible fitting in with science and never the other way around, huh?

Why is it that no one said, "Those passages where the Bible refers to a flat earth were clearly figurative, you can't use them to support your flat earth idea!"

roman2819 said:

Regarding your question, how should we read 'ends of the earth ", my answer is consider his very common sentence:

Men are taller than women.

Are these words literal, or factual or true or figurative ? Consider how we use it and it can enlighten you quite a bit. It is definitely relevant for interpreting Scriptures too.

I an not kidding. You can only understand well if you figure it out yourself. I can only show the way. I will also ask others who say the bible is literally wrong or figuratively vague to do the same.

Click to expand...

For someone who insists that the bible contains so many factual statements, including that the Earth is a globe, it seems a little odd that you are now insisting that we need to consider context when that is the one thing you consistently fail to do. I (and others) have said your interpretations ignore context, and you have not responded to any of those posts. Yet here you are espousing the very same argument that was raised against you.

roman2819 said:

I believe it is all right for the Bible to contain both figurative and literal verses. Or not suppose to? Must everything in Bible be read literally? If if does not pass the literacy test, is it invalid? Even if one say circle of earth is figurative, there are many such verses which are true enough . As well, backed by history and archaeology, Bible has hold its own against much scrutinies.

I know some people are saying bible is viable but they do not believe everything in bible is all correct. Regarding this, I discuss in post #879 if u have time to read, thanks.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. My intention is not to denigrate the Bible, just to suggest that it’s not particularly constructive to use what are essentially subjective interpretations to Bolster one’s arguments.

roman2819 said:

Regarding your question, how should we read 'ends of the earth ", my answer is consider his very common sentence:

Men are taller than women.

Are these words literal, or factual or true or figurative ? Consider how we use it and it can enlighten you quite a bit. It is definitely relevant for interpreting Scriptures too.

I an not kidding. You can only understand well if you figure it out yourself. I can only show the way. I will also ask others who say the bible is literally wrong or figuratively vague to do the same.

Click to expand...

I've got a notification that I'm mentioned in this post for some reason. Huh, websites, what can you do.

And since I'm told that I'm mentioned in it, I will reply: why are you trying to shift the burden of proof onto other people? Describing something as a circle is describing something as flat. That's a fact.

The Bible has a mix of factual statements (certain places existing and certain people), allegory, myth and simple tales. There's nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is when you try and say that the Bible is WHOLLY true and factual while ignoring the allegory and myth and trying to twist the world to suit the Bible.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

I've got a notification that I'm mentioned in this post for some reason. Huh, websites, what can you do.

Click to expand...

I got that too. Perhaps the post was edited afterwards?

Kylie said:

I got that too. Perhaps the post was edited afterwards?

Click to expand...

I've done it to some one before. It was, indeed, a result of editing. Not to say that it couldn't happen some other way.

Kylie said:

I got that too. Perhaps the post was edited afterwards?

Click to expand...

Tinker Grey said:

I've done it to some one before. It was, indeed, a result of editing. Not to say that it couldn't happen some other way.

Click to expand...

But if a post is edited, it will usually say underneath "Edited at such and such a time". That post didn't.
Weeeird.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

But if a post is edited, it will usually say underneath "Edited at such and such a time". That post didn't.
Weeeird.

Click to expand...

I think it depends on how long it is that you edit. As soon as I post this reply I'll go in and edit it and see if the edit notification pops up.

And here's the edit.

And another one. Yeah, it looks like if you edit quickly, no edit notification is included.

Kylie said:

I think it depends on how long it is that you edit. As soon as I post this reply I'll go in and edit it and see if the edit notification pops up.

And here's the edit.

And another one. Yeah, it looks like if you edit quickly, no edit notification is included.

Click to expand...

Huh.
... now that's screwy.

I think it's so if you post and then realise you missed a bit, spelled a word wrong, messed up the quote tags, etc, you can go and fix it and it's still counted as the original post.

And if this goes well, you've been told you were mentioned in this post and yet your name isn't here.