Dinosaurs on the Ark?

[Papias]

No, but I believe he became much more "politically correct" as he grew older. Regardless, Graham never said evolution was true and Genesis was not.

And neither has anyone here said that Genesis was not true. We've pointed this out several times, and you still "misrepresent" what we say. When someone is misleading that many times, after being corrected so many times, it becomes harder and harder to believe they are being honest.

He contended that it made little difference.

Which is exactly what we are trying to tell you too - yet you make creationism an idol that rivals the power of Jesus salvific power.

The difference is, Graham never contradicted the Bible; not ever. Whatever his doubts he never stood against what was written.

Show where we "stand against what was written". Graham said that the creation could have happened by an evolutionary process. You just said that this was not "contradicting the Bible" - so why is it OK when Graham does it, and you false accuse us when we do exactly the same thing?

Why persist in siding with the godless who believe nothing?

Simply and demonstrably false. As you know, and I have shown you multiple times, as others have reminded you, most of the support for evolution in the united states comes from Christians - and most scientists themselves are believers. Accepting the reality of evolution is not "siding with the godless", it's siding with believers. Like the point above, being that you know this, it's "odd" to see your repeating the same falsehood after it's been shown to be false.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Speedwell]

No, but I believe he became much more "politically correct" as he grew older. Regardless, Graham never said evolution was true and Genesis was not. He contended that it made little difference. Graham was perplexed by the contradictions from what he read in the Bible and what the "experts" were telling him. He was never an evolutionist, but like many others believed that the earth very well could be old.

On the flip side, Ray Comfort takes it to the evolution believers aggressively. His weapon of choice; the Scriptures. So is one man of God superior to the other, or do they each have the right to be wrong? The difference is, Graham never contradicted the Bible; not ever. Whatever his doubts he never stood against what was written.

Graham contended that it made little difference; Comfort does not. Is that about the size of it?

 

[KWCrazy]

Graham contended that it made little difference; Comfort does not. Is that about the size of it?

I have the greatest respect for Billy Graham. I believe he was wrong. There is, however, another possibility; that he said what he had to say to reach the widest possible audience on the thing that concerned him most.

 

[Eryk]

Also, allegory does not mean lies or mistruths. It means truths told by way of stories.

Everyone on this thread understands the difference.

Orwell's 1984 is truthful in that it conveys life under totalitarianism. Orwell had conversations with Russian refugess and with that and other information he constructed a story to capture the essence of the thing. This is an important novel. It's a great novel because it fits reality, and we must have true historical records to determine that. A novel that depicts Soviet Russia as a libertarian paradise would be ridiculous to us, because we have the history.

What if someone said that the Kronstadt rebellion was an allegory, not historically true, but truthful in that the story is meant to inspire resistance? Would it not be important to say that this event is real history, so that we would have a true (not truthy) understanding of the past? Wouldn't a denial of the historicity of the Kronstadt rebellion be a lie?

The individual human being named Adam is our past. He is at the root of our family tree. This is the first of many contingent historical events that lead to us. Adam is important in a way that no archetypal, depth psychology understanding of humanity could be. Because his life and tragedy precedes all of our poetic insights about life. It made history and had a shaping influence on all subsequent history. You can reinterpret allegories ten ways to Sunday, and you'll still die.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Everyone on this thread understands the difference.

Orwell's 1984 is truthful in that it conveys life under totalitarianism. Orwell had conversations with Russian refugess and with that and other information he constructed a story to capture the essence of the thing. This is an important novel. It's a great novel because it fits reality, and we must have true historical records to determine that. A novel that depicts Soviet Russia as a libertarian paradise would be ridiculous to us, because we have the history.

What if someone said that the Kronstadt rebellion was an allegory, not historically true, but truthful in that the story is meant to inspire resistance? Would it not be important to say that this event is real history, so that we would have a true (not truthy) understanding of the past? Wouldn't a denial of the historicity of the Kronstadt rebellion be a lie?

The individual human being named Adam is our past. He is at the root of our family tree. This is the first of many contingent historical events that lead to us. Adam is important in a way that no archetypal, depth psychology understanding of humanity could be. Because his life and tragedy precedes all of our poetic insights about life. It made history and had a shaping influence on all subsequent history. You can reinterpret allegories ten ways to Sunday, and you'll still die.

Your rebellion example is moot. There is a big difference in taking some allegorically from recent history where it is clearly true and talking about ancient history reported in one source with no other confirmatory external info.

And, we will all die. But we will also all find new life through Jesus Christ.

 

[Eryk]

ancient history reported in one source with no other confirmatory external info.

The Holy Spirit confirms the truth of the book that He inspired.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

The Holy Spirit confirms the truth of the book that He inspired.

I agree.

The Holy Spirit has taught me to interpret Genesis as allegory and to take to heart the truth of its lessons.

 

[Eryk]

I agree.

The Holy Spirit has taught me to interpret Genesis as allegory and to take to heart the truth of its lessons.

It's history according to the Bible. Among other things, by connecting people and events in Genesis to later history. This is getting repetitious.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

It's history according to the Bible. Among other things, by connecting people and events in Genesis to later history. This is getting repetitious.

I agree it is getting repetitious. However, I (and others) feel the need to keep repeating ourselves because you (and others) insist on misinterpreting our position.

 

[Eryk]

I agree it is getting repetitious. However, I (and others) feel the need to keep repeating ourselves because you (and others) insist on misinterpreting our position.

Do you see Adam's name in First Chronicles? A name in a genealogy with all those other names, a person as real as all those other people are? The truth is right in front of you.

 

[Speedwell]

It's history according to the Bible. Among other things, by connecting people and events in Genesis to later history. This is getting repetitious.

Yes it is. We know what you believe and you know what we believe--even if some of you won't admit it.
Now what? All we want is for you to put an end to the misrepresentation and hostility. What do you want? To teach your doctrine in the public schools?

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Do you see Adam's name in First Chronicles? A name in a genealogy with all those other names, a person as real as all those other people are? The truth is right in front of you.

I have a hard time believing that the Israelites were truly able to trace their lineage back to the first man with literal accuracy.

And, as @Speedwell mentioned, I know what you believe and am cool with you believing what you believe. What I am not cool with is people who are hostile toward people who hold different Biblical interpretations. I am also not cool with the continued blatant misrepresentation of our beliefs.

 

[Eryk]

Yes it is. We know what you believe and you know what we believe--even if some of you won't admit it.
Now what? All we want is for you to put an end to the misrepresentation and hostility. What do you want? To teach your doctrine in the public schools?

That's a leap. I didn't say anything about abrogating the Establishment Clause. And we're the ones who misrepresent?

 

[Speedwell]

That's a leap. I didn't say anything about abrogating the Establishment Clause. And we're the ones who misrepresent?

Are you claiming that there are no biblical creationists who want creationism taught in the public schools?

 

[Eryk]

I have a hard time believing that the Israelites were truly able to trace their lineage back to the first man with literal accuracy.

Then you're saying they lied about something they set down as fact.

 

[Eryk]

Are you claiming that there are no biblical creationists who want creationism taught in the public schools?

You pointed the finger at me when I had said nothing about public schools. Back off.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Then you're saying they lied about something they set down as fact.

Nope, I'm saying they were tieing their history to the history of their religion. Their idea of an historical text is different than ours. Literal truth was less important than teaching lessons.

 

[Speedwell]

You pointed the finger at me when I had said nothing about public schools. Back off.

I thought it was clear from my post that I was talking about a "corporate" you. If you got a different impression, I apologize.

The question still stands. You know what we want. What do you want? As a group, I mean.

 

[AV1611VET]

I ask again, though: if my faith in God and His Son Jesus is enhanced by allegorical interpretation, as opposed to a literal one, how can it be godless?

It's called building a house of cards.

 

[Speedwell]

It's called building a house on the sand.

Jesus is sand?