Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[Belk]

I must be an idiot of extraordinary proportions.
I've been where he's at and while I upon researching it and reflecting upon it found his position to be as off-target as can be - in fact I have problems thinking of an analogy illustrating it's off-targetedness well enough. And even though I've been there and can even speak the lingo (at least in Norwegian) - amen hallelujah - I still cannot seem to communicate to people like AV what I've discovered.

Well, either I'm an idiot when it comes to communication or they are completely locked within a fanatical mindset.

It's Morton's demon.

The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002

 

[selfinflikted]

It's not even the only creation parable. Look in Genesis 2 for a second one. AND: They conflict.
So a reading of the bible alone provides ample evidence that AV is wrong. His view isn't even consistent with the bible he claims to read literally. In fact, a literal reading would ensure the reader considered it a parable as there are two conflicting stories. Belief in an infallible bible then results in an understanding that the creation stories are creation parables.

Yea, exactly. I can totally understand the need to justify and feel secure in one's beliefs, BUT, I can't understand why some people think that the Bible must be read literally. Would reading the Bible as parable versus a literal reading really change anything, AV? If so, how and why?

 

[AV1611VET]

But I have read plenty of debates here, and you really are the only one whom I've never seen admit to possible error.

You mean like here: 50 ?

Or here: 717 ?

Or here: 72 ?

Or here: 294 ?

Or here: 11 ?

 

[ChrisBot]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "Bible-Creation-Evolution (3)"