You say that the text is literal:
When the text so indicates.
Which usually means, "When it supports the views of The Barbarian." In many cases your responses are so biased, and your analysis so cherry-picked, it's meaningless to have a discussion with you. Along with so much sidestepping/deflection.
Here's an example of your obvious bias:
You're assuming literalism.
Clearly I didn't assume ANYTHING. Unlike you, I didn't even declare an apodictic like, "God said X". YOU are the one constantly assuming your biased, cherry-picked point of view. All I did was discuss which view SEEMS to me most plausible.
You're assuming literalism.
The Pentateuch has about 187 chapters. By all accounts, most of it is literal history. In support of your views, you've cherry-picked the first couple of chapters as non-literal, you then cherry-pick specific verses out of Genesis 1 as literal, you then declare these conclusions in an apodictic tone, and then you have the GALL to accuse ME of being the one to make unwarranted assumptions! Newsflash: YOUR views are not the default here, as though the burden of proof falls on everyone else. At least I can't see any plausible logic establishing your views as the default.
Again, you can take it too literally; the story includes the formation of a firmament above the waters, the "raqua" Or domelike sky above the Earth, which the Hebrews thought existed.
Um..er...I take that literally.
Depends on how much trust you put in Jesus.
Matthew 16:18 And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed, even in heaven.
I believe Him. It's not a salvation issue; Roman Catholics aren't the only Christians. The RCC isn't even the only church. There are churches outside the RCC (do you know what the apostles regarded as a church?) But what Christ said, is true.
Typical deflection. Non-responsive. Putting your trust in Jesus (or someone else) doesn't automatically resolve the issue of human fallibility, neither on salvation issues nor on post-salvation issues. Admittedly this epistemic quandary is off-topic but your response is illustrative of your side-stepping.
Another example of you assuming your views are the default:
That was Calvin's addition to scripture, in order to maintain his belief that it was all literal. In fact, it nowhere says that He converted water to soil.
Genesis 1:9 God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done.
Calvin was assuming the philosophy of the Sumerian/Akkadian legends, in which water was symbolic of chaos, from which the gods formed all other things. But his assumption is not supported by scripture.
So the burden of proof is on Calvin? Because your view is the default? The burden of proof seems to fall on YOU, given 2 Peter 3:5:
"Long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the
earth was formed out of water and by water."
That was Calvin's addition to scripture, in order to maintain his belief that it was all literal.
Do you skew EVERYTHING bible-related in support of your bias? I mean, that's a baseless accusation against Calvin, right? I honestly don't see how Calvin NEEDED to posit "formed out of water" to be a literalist. I think Calvin (and several other important scholars like him) felt compelled by 2 Peter 3:5.
Miracles exist; they are things He does to teach us something, not because He has to step in and change nature in order to get it to work.
Where did you get that definition of miracles? Again, do you skew EVERYTHING bible-related in support of your preconceived bias? Regardless where you got that definition, it doesn't sound biblical to me.
He made the Earth to produce life, and it did. It seems you're thinking of creation as somehow apart from God, as if He had to tinker around with it to effect His will. Do you not see that it works exactly as He wills it to do, and his will is what makes every particle in this universe exist and function?
I've linked you to a post summarizing the essentials of my cosmogony, probably a couple of times now. I'm a monistic materialist. Yes God HAD to tinker with matter. Even gravity is tinkering, in my view.
16God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
17God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,
That sounds like tinkering to me. And even if I'm wrong, I see no obvious reason to shoulder the burden of proof.
Do you think God the Father is made of stuff?
Yes, like Tertullian, I'm a monistic materialist.
So when Jesus says that a mustard seed is the smallest seed, we have to take it as His audience would. That was the smallest seed they knew about; it was figurative illustration of a spiritual truth, not a botany lecture.
This is your proof of a non-literal Genesis? This is what Jesus prefaces about mustard seeds:
"
31He told them another
parable:
Sure, when He's already straight-up TELLING YOU, "Don't take this next statement literally," a non-literal reading is warranted. Secondly you yourself admit: "That was the smallest seed they knew about." Every statement has a context. Since that was the CONTEXT, it's all He needed to talk about, which isn't proof of non-literalism.
That does not render scripture wrong, any more than the mention of a sunset means that he Bible is wrong because the motion of the Earth, not the Sun, causes sunsets.
Proof of non-literalism? Yet your science books will tell you, "The sun rises in east and sets in the west." That's not literally true, is it? Great. I've just proved, by your logic, that your science textbooks are non-literal.
You're trying to take figurative things and make them into some kind of history.
Oh that's right. Your position is the default. The burden of proof falls on the rest of us. I almost forgot.
And that would be as foolish as trying to put God into a science textbook.
Science is results-driven, therefore is resistant to any religious views that might put a damper on scientific investigation. Yet your primary responsibility AS A CHRISTIAN is not necessarily the advancement of science but, more likely, the spread of the gospel. From that perspective, it's not
necessarily foolish to consider God in a theory-of-origins class or textbook. You shouldn't assume your biased agenda is the correct one, and that the burden of proof falls on everyone else.
