Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Which environment requires modern humans to have hairs on their backs?
And so praise God I did not
Depends on what you mean by Literal. According to Carl Sagan & Neil Degrass Tyson (hosts for cosmos) it took God 12.9 BILLION years to create Adam and Eve. Yet we find Adam and Eve in Eden 6,000 years ago. I happen to be a dispensationist so I think a day in the Bible represents 1,000 years. Still a day could be a literal 24 hour day because the day marks when God was finished with his work.Damien, evidence (proof) of evolution is how we know Genesis 1 must not be interpreted literally.
Premature at post #223? Creating a thread such as this one in the "Creation & Theistic Evolution" Forum is bound to result in what you're claiming to be "out of scope." Perhaps a relocation of the thread would be more effective.this has turned into a creation/evolution debate. I would suggest this is out of scope from the OP. The OP is about discussion the literalness of the creation account proposing that a literal view is the most logical view. Although a resolution of a non-literal view may lead to an evolution discussion it seems too premature for this thread. can we perhaps stick to a discussion as to why the creation account is literal or non-literal? For example what sort of clues does the creation account show us that would suggest it is literal or non-literal? The OP tells us legal code demands it to be literal, does everyone agree with this?
Genesis account is not literal, because:this has turned into a creation/evolution debate. I would suggest this is out of scope from the OP. The OP is about discussion the literalness of the creation account proposing that a literal view is the most logical view. Although a resolution of a non-literal view may lead to an evolution discussion it seems too premature for this thread. can we perhaps stick to a discussion as to why the creation account is literal or non-literal? For example what sort of clues does the creation account show us that would suggest it is literal or non-literal? The OP tells us legal code demands it to be literal, does everyone agree with this?
Your declaration is glaringly flawed, in that it betrays incorrect assumptions on your part, specifically that:Genesis account is not literal, because:
1) it does not correspondent to reality
2) it was a standard to write mythological beginnings, in every ancient nation; you must first prove that this should be some kind of exception, but:
3) there are clear poetic and symbolic themes in the text
4) There is no evidence that it was dictated by God, therefore there is no point in forcing people to take it literally and scientifically.
Your declaration is glaringly flawed, in that it betrays incorrect assumptions on your part, specifically that:
1) the Bible is subject to your conception/perception of reality
2) the Bible is subject to the literary conventions of other ancient texts
3) the Bible is subject to your opinion that poetic, symbolic, and literal themes cannot coexist therein
4) the Bible is subject to your opinion that its testimony must be dictated by God to be valid in matters of scientific concern (or any others, no less)
And I guess I missed the part where "force" was being applied.
More accurately, I would say that virtually all are privileged, in the post-Industrial Revolution period, to have The Book Of Books ready at hand, and the fact that I'm called into question for defending Its authority by one who identifies as "Protestant" strains credulity for me. If you wish to see and depict me as a blind follower and ignorer of "anything else," you are certainly at liberty to do so. If you expect me to reply to such an (ironically) ignorant expression, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you.You basically say that you have a book and you ignore anything else, any cultural contexts, any evidence. You just go blindly by the book, because its your faith.
this has turned into a creation/evolution debate. I would suggest this is out of scope from the OP. The OP is about discussion the literalness of the creation account proposing that a literal view is the most logical view. Although a resolution of a non-literal view may lead to an evolution discussion it seems too premature for this thread. can we perhaps stick to a discussion as to why the creation account is literal or non-literal? For example what sort of clues does the creation account show us that would suggest it is literal or non-literal? The OP tells us legal code demands it to be literal, does everyone agree with this?
Genesis account is not literal, because:
1) it does not correspondent to reality
2) it was a standard to write mythological beginnings, in every ancient nation; you must first prove that this should be some kind of exception, but:
3) there are clear poetic and symbolic themes in the text
There is no evidence that it was dictated by God, therefore there is no point in forcing people to take it word for word or even scientifically.
and ecology, paleontology, zoology, botany, geology, etc.
a spin-off thread would be better. the OP sets the context and the context is about the literalness of the creation account.Premature at post #223? Creating a thread such as this one in the "Creation & Theistic Evolution" Forum is bound to result in what you're claiming to be "out of scope." Perhaps a relocation of the thread would be more effective.
Genesis account is not literal, because:
1) it does not correspondent to reality
2) it was a standard to write mythological beginnings, in every ancient nation; you must first prove that this should be some kind of exception, but:
3) there are clear poetic and symbolic themes in the text
There is no evidence that it was dictated by God, therefore there is no point in forcing people to take it word for word or even scientifically.
Yep all kinds of actual "observations in nature" very possible without having to first imagine that a bacteria will "turn in to a rabbit" given enough time and chance.
- repetitions "and it was evening and it was morning, day xyz"The difficulty with that position is we have know way of determining what things in Genesis or the rest of the scripture for that matter are fact and which ones are fiction. In order to determine if something is a fictional story rather than history you need to show that. Genesis is written from the beginning to end as an historical event. There is no language in the Genesis account that would say it's allegory. In fact Genesis is supported in Exodus as fact by God himself.
Observations are possible, but will not make any sense.yep all kinds of actual "observations in nature" very possible without having to first imagine that a bacteria will "turn in to a rabbit" given enough time and chance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?