Genuine Questions.

[notto]

Gander, I would recommend that you try to find a single scientist who accepts the earth as young based entirely on the evidence and not their religious views.

If the evidence for a young earth is so strong, why are there not scientists who accept that the earth is young of all faiths or no faith at all.

Why are there not scientists who accept the young earth who have not agreed to 'Statements of Faith' such as those by AIG, ICR, or other creation ministries that require that the age of the earth is accepted as young and only evidence that supports this point of view is valid, all else is wrong.

In a large part, science works by consensus and the overall overwhelming consensus is that the earth is old. This consensus becomes unanimous when you look at scientists that are not guided to their answer first by their faith and then by the evidence.

 

[Bushido216]

I would like to suggest one book. The Bible. It seems odd that one can look at this book as just a poetic or figurative writing. It would seem to me that our creator would be capable of conveying truth to us in a way that would not require a PHD and years of analysis to understand the main points. By what measure do we decide what is literal and what is figurative? Is Jesus Christ literal or is He figurative as well?

As I have listened to the debate about this topic (young versus old) I find that the basis for both sides is "literal versus figurative" on this topic as well as many others. What I do not find is a yardstick by which the jump from literal to figuative is measured. What say ye?

The problem with that, hesalive, is that you are trying to use God's creation to disprove God's word. Where God's creation does not contradicted a literal reading of God's word, we can assume it is literal. Where God's creation does contradict God's word, we can assume it is not.

 

[hesalive]

The problem with that, hesalive, is that you are trying to use God's creation to disprove God's word. Where God's creation does not contradicted a literal reading of God's word, we can assume it is literal. Where God's creation does contradict God's word, we can assume it is not.

Dear Bushido,

Thank you for your reply, If I am to understand you correctly, the observable world is the yardstick by which one would judge the literacy of the Bible. but you did not really answer the question I posed. It is clear by the the controversy surrounding this topic that there are two very different interpretations of what Gods creation says. You have your interpretation as others have theirs. The physical world has been interpreted in many ways throughout history and not all interpretations have proven to be accurate. The same can be said for mans interpretation of the Bible. As I consider the topic I have found that there is a missing component that is not considered in when evaluating the data. The following is an excerpt from a note I wrote to a friend recently about this. Please consider the content and offer your opinion.
Thanks,
John

Please let me clarify my perspective. While I find that science as your letter defines as “the intellectually honest pursuit of the truth though the gathering of evidence, the formulation of hypothesis and their testing through mathematical, physical, chemical and biological principles” to sound valid, I find that this definition of “pursuit of the truth” is missing an important component which causes me to be skeptical of the results. Before I offer my rational, let me state that while I am skeptical, please do not take that to mean a blanket statement that I see all science as you have described as without merit. Clearly this has been a boon to man in our struggle to exist in and understand the world around us and ourselves. To the unbelieving man these would be the only necessary components of attaining truth, but you and I have staked our eternity in a belief that cannot be defined in any of these terms. This is the missing component.

Let me offer an example. I must make the assumption that you believe in miracles. I am hesitant to offer a Biblical example as I am unsure of your position as to the literality of any given scripture, but I will pose one just for the sake of the point, if this is not a literal account in your mind, perhaps you can think of a different example of a miracle that would apply. There is a plethora of examples to draw from but the one that comes to mind is when Jesus turned the water into wine. When subjected to the principles as defined above it could not be explained in any naturalistic manner, yet if you believe the account, it happened. If we agree on the account then for the sake of the discussion we would agree that it is the sum or truth of the equation. This would necessitate an unknown in the equation that is not taken into account in science as I understand it and realistically cannot. A miracle represents an unknown that naturalistic science would demand be attainable. Science would merely say that this is just a component that we have yet to understand, that we may not understand in our lifetime or for many lifetimes, but that it must have a physical, natural explanation. While I am sure that in rebuttal it could be said that many things that were once considered a miracle can now be defined. This may be true, but it seems inconceivable that we could ever grasp how H20 with no grape of whatever fruit content could suddenly contain it. Trickery perhaps. Or how a couple fish and loaves could multiply into thousands and feed a group of thousands with much left over. These things defy natural science, which leads me to a second point. Is God confined by natural law? Does He operate from within the creation or from without it. Again, science as defined above does not allow for a God. It assumes that all things conform to natural law and can somehow be defined by it.

I would conclude that if one accepts the God of creation and accepts that He performs miracles that do not conform to natural law, it is an inescapable factor that Gods hand is an indefinable variable in “the intellectually honest pursuit of the truth”. Furthermore, if by the example of the wine, we cannot conceivably fit Gods actions into a scientific explanation for the final outcome (wine), how could we possibly make assertions that Gods creation had to be a product of naturally definable processes rather that created as a final product in its origin?

All of this can be summarized by a few basic questions.

1. Is Gods hand an indefinable variable?
2. Is this unknown factored into science?
3. What criteria would be used for where this variable might be applied?
It is my opinion that the Bible is the only thing we have to reliably consider where we might use the unknown factor of Gods hand in evaluating the world around us. Man has always proved to be fallible, the Bible has not. I see little attempt on the part of science to apply this. I would purport that this is due to the largely secular nature of current science. This is what creates the skepticism I have for science as you have defined it. I do not know if you would consider this disrespect for science or not, but it is subjective depending on the definition of science. Who would not respect “the intellectually honest pursuit of the truth”? It is more the dismissal of God as a defining factor that I have trouble with. Computer models are based upon the factors that science deems acceptable, this does not preclude the possibility of Gods hand in things. As Phillip Johnson observed “if science is forbidden by its own rules even to look in the direction of intelligent design, the evidence, whatever it might be would be irrelevant”.

I don’t expect you to necessarily agree with all I propose here but I hope that it sheds some light on my opinions.

 

[Bushido216]

That was an excerpt? By God, man, what do you consider a letter, if that is a note?

Anyway.

It is clear by the the controversy surrounding this topic that there are two very different interpretations of what Gods creation says.

That is absolutely correct. However, part of having an opinion in any matter is being able to back that opinion up. In this instance, there are things in this world which cannot be explained by the Young Earth interpretation.

These things defy natural science, which leads me to a second point. Is God confined by natural law? Does He operate from within the creation or from without it. Again, science as defined above does not allow for a God. It assumes that all things conform to natural law and can somehow be defined by it.

The Majority of the Above Paragraph was Omitted for Brevity, as it Contained Uncontested Examples Leading to the Above Conclusion.

This is an arguement that I've seen many use before. No one here is denying that God can perform miracles. No one here is denying that He did. When scientists argue against the miracle of spontaneous creation on the part of God, we are not arguing against His power to have done so, we are arguing against this one instance of miraculous intervention. There is no empirical proof left over from Jesus' day to show that He didn't turn the Water into Wine.

Furthermore, if by the example of the wine, we cannot conceivably fit Gods actions into a scientific explanation for the final outcome (wine), how could we possibly make assertions that Gods creation had to be a product of naturally definable processes rather that created as a final product in its origin?

Because of evidences left in God's creation. There are several inescapable pieces of information left over from previous times that say God was not directly involved in the creation of the World. (If he created the Universe, I would not be surprised, however.)

1. Is Gods hand an indefinable variable?
2. Is this unknown factored into science?
3. What criteria would be used for where this variable might be applied?

1.) Yes. We cannot ever be truely certain what portions of unexplainable science are due to our limited understanding and what portions are actual miracles.
2.) I wouldn't know. I'm in 12th grade. Ask lucaspa.
3.) If it were up to me, I'd want to wait as long as possible before throwing up my hands and saying "Goddidit". Galileo, Copernicus, Magellan, and Darwin challenged long-held beliefs deemed unchallengable and have, with the possible exception of the last, which is still being battled out, come out victorious.

It is, in the end, the striving of man to understand more about the universe in which we live in, and to rebel against the mandate to "just accept it as is" that has lead to the great strides in our human understanding.


I thankyou for coming to this forum, and opening up in honest and thoughtful discourse in the issue. You are a much-needed change from the post-and-run posters who frequent these boards.

 

[Gander]

That is absolutely correct. However, part of having an opinion in any matter is being able to back that opinion up. In this instance, there are things in this world which cannot be explained by the Young Earth interpretation.

By that reckoning nobody should have an opinion. Both evolutionist and creationist authorities recognise that there are many things for which they do not have an explaination.

An opinion should be based on weight of evidence. My opinion is based on the weight of evidence that I see in favour of creation.
Several times during this thread I have been pushed to naming what sources of material I have been reading. I refuse to do this as all it will lead to is a "my professor is better than your professor" type argument. Regardless of source of reference material, regardless of influence, if we seek the truth then we should be open minded enough reach our own opinion. That opinion must come by looking as impartially as possible at the evidence.

So, a small challenge to you Bushido. Give me a specific example of something that you believe YEC cannot explain while evolution can. I will attempt to study that specific example, and give you an answer based on the evidence. I will not quote someone elses opinion. I will not rely on someone elses opinion. I hope the question will be yours and not someone elses.

I cannot guarantee an answer you will agree with, in fact I cannot guarantee an answer at all. I do hope however that if I give an answer you will not just refute it with someone elses opinion, but actually measure it against the evidence.

I cannot be fairer than this, after all I wouldn't want to be accused of being a hit and run poster.

 

[ThePhoenix]

The problem is that there's no independent evidence against the water into wine, or the ressurection. There is independent evidence about creation, namely there are certain things that we would have to observe if the earth was created 6,000 years ago and allowed to follow natural processes for most of its history that aren't here.

You can, of course, argue appearance of age, that is that God deliberately created it to look old. Of course that basically means God is decieving us. Which puts all of christianity in question.

 

[Bushido216]

By that reckoning nobody should have an opinion. Both evolutionist and creationist authorities recognise that there are many things for which they do not have an explaination.

An opinion should be based on weight of evidence. My opinion is based on the weight of evidence that I see in favour of creation.
Several times during this thread I have been pushed to naming what sources of material I have been reading. I refuse to do this as all it will lead to is a "my professor is better than your professor" type argument. Regardless of source of reference material, regardless of influence, if we seek the truth then we should be open minded enough reach our own opinion. That opinion must come by looking as impartially as possible at the evidence.

So, a small challenge to you Bushido. Give me a specific example of something that you believe YEC cannot explain while evolution can. I will attempt to study that specific example, and give you an answer based on the evidence. I will not quote someone elses opinion. I will not rely on someone elses opinion. I hope the question will be yours and not someone elses.

I cannot guarantee an answer you will agree with, in fact I cannot guarantee an answer at all. I do hope however that if I give an answer you will not just refute it with someone elses opinion, but actually measure it against the evidence.

I cannot be fairer than this, after all I wouldn't want to be accused of being a hit and run poster.

98.3% genetic similarity between Chimps and Humans.

Go!

 

[bdfoster]

So, a small challenge to you Bushido. Give me a specific example of something that you believe YEC cannot explain while evolution can. I will attempt to study that specific example, and give you an answer based on the evidence. I will not quote someone elses opinion. I will not rely on someone elses opinion. I hope the question will be yours and not someone elses.

Sorry to but in, but I get the impression you missed my earlier post. Please explain angular unconformities. That's something I believe YEC cannot explain while evolution, or at least mainstream geology, explains very well.

Brent

 

[hesalive]

That was an excerpt? By God, man, what do you consider a letter, if that is a note?

Anyway.


That is absolutely correct. However, part of having an opinion in any matter is being able to back that opinion up. In this instance, there are things in this world which cannot be explained by the Young Earth interpretation.

The Majority of the Above Paragraph was Omitted for Brevity, as it Contained Uncontested Examples Leading to the Above Conclusion.

This is an arguement that I've seen many use before. No one here is denying that God can perform miracles. No one here is denying that He did. When scientists argue against the miracle of spontaneous creation on the part of God, we are not arguing against His power to have done so, we are arguing against this one instance of miraculous intervention. There is no empirical proof left over from Jesus' day to show that He didn't turn the Water into Wine.


Because of evidences left in God's creation. There are several inescapable pieces of information left over from previous times that say God was not directly involved in the creation of the World. (If he created the Universe, I would not be surprised, however.)


1.) Yes. We cannot ever be truely certain what portions of unexplainable science are due to our limited understanding and what portions are actual miracles.
2.) I wouldn't know. I'm in 12th grade. Ask lucaspa.
3.) If it were up to me, I'd want to wait as long as possible before throwing up my hands and saying "Goddidit". Galileo, Copernicus, Magellan, and Darwin challenged long-held beliefs deemed unchallengable and have, with the possible exception of the last, which is still being battled out, come out victorious.

It is, in the end, the striving of man to understand more about the universe in which we live in, and to rebel against the mandate to "just accept it as is" that has lead to the great strides in our human understanding.


I thankyou for coming to this forum, and opening up in honest and thoughtful discourse in the issue. You are a much-needed change from the post-and-run posters who frequent these boards.

Dear Bushido,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I will ask for your patience in my response. I just got home after watching "the passion" this evening and I am feeling very inadequate. I am grasping at how God could love us this much. Its inconcievable and leads me to the inescapable conclusion that we cannot ever truly grasp love itself. The poor reflection in the mirror, remember?

I will try and offer up a reply tomorrow.

Thank God I am a creation and not an accident. The object of love and not an insignificant collection of matter.

Sincerely,
John

 

[Gander]

98.3% genetic similarity between Chimps and Humans.

Go!

You're on.


Let me just clarify the question. You want me to give you an explaination as to why chimp DNA is similar to human DNA?

I will take some time to investigate this, but I promise you an answer even if it is "I do not know".

 

[Gander]

Sorry to but in, but I get the impression you missed my earlier post. Please explain angular unconformities. That's something I believe YEC cannot explain while evolution, or at least mainstream geology, explains very well.

Brent

I will take a look at angular unconformities. Do you recommend any research?

 

[bdfoster]

Any beginning geology text should cover the different types of unconformities. As for creationist material, I havn't really seen the issue addressed which is why I ask the question. I would think you might find mention of it in The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris. Good luck!

 

[Bushido216]

You're on.


Let me just clarify the question. You want me to give you an explaination as to why chimp DNA is similar to human DNA?

I will take some time to investigate this, but I promise you an answer even if it is "I do not know".

Yes, that is the question. What special creation of humans and chimpanzees would account for this similarity.

 

[gluadys]

Since that time I have been doing some pretty heavy duty research into the actual science of the subject. I am now fully convinced in a young earth creation. I have found that a lot of what I had previously nominally believed was wrong. Most of it influenced by compromise with evolutionist theory. My research is ongoing, but at this point I am now confident enough to state that both the evolutionist and old earth creation theories are scientifically bankrupt.

Well we have been through 4 pages of dialogue, and for me, the key question has not been asked yet.

What convinced you that YEC is right. Specifically--not just a general statement that it conformed better with the evidence. What specific evidence was it that tilted your opinion in the direction of YEC?

What had you believed "most of it influenced by compromise with evolutionary theory" that was wrong. Again, specifics, please.

Since you had not given it much thought before, have you considered that your understanding of evolution was/is itself faulty and that some of the things you believe about evolution are not really part of the theory?

 

[gluadys]

Many evangelical Christians today suppose that Bible believers have always been in favor of a "young-universe" and "creationism." However, as any student of the history of geology (and religion) knows, by the 1850s all competent evangelical Christian geologists agreed that the earth must be extremely old, and that geological investigations did not support that the Flood "in the days of Noah" literally "covered the whole earth." Rev. William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford), Rev. Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge), Rev. Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts), John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College), Hugh Miller (self taught geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper), and Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up in a fundamentalist atmosphere, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America), all rejected the "Genesis Flood" as an explanation of the geologic record (or any part of that record), and argued that it must have taken a very long time to form the various geologic layers. Neither were their conclusions based on a subconscious desire to support "evolution," since none of the above evangelical Christians were evolutionists, and the earliest works of each of them were composed before Darwin's Origin of Species was published. The plain facts of geology led them to acknowledge the vast antiquity of the earth. And this was before the advent of radiometric dating."

The Free Kirk split from the Church of Scotland in 1843 and Hugh Miller, as noted above, was the first editor of their monthly newsletter. He was a self-taught geologist and in the first year of publication included a series of articles called The Old Red Sandstone (later made into a book of the same title) in which he presented the scientific learnings from geology to his Christian readers---all of whom would be creationists and evangelicals.

He did not discuss evolution. It was not on the scientific agenda at the time. But his work and that of many other Christians firmly established an age of at least several hundreds of millions of years for the earth, and did so without compromise to evangelical Christian beliefs.

Miller is one of several theologians and scientists of the 19th and early 20th centuries featured in an Eerdman's publication of the 1980s called Darwin's Forgotten Defenders. That was where I first heard of him, along with other evangelical Christians such as Asa Gray who supported evolution.

When YECs present their theories as the only option for Christians, they are maligning the names of many of their spiritual forefathers.

 

[gluadys]

The other question is easier to answer. Gen 9 has God giving permission to eat animals. (post flood). Some people think animals (and maybe people) turned to meat eating before the flood, and that was part of the problem (the earth being filled with violence). I don't like that idea, because you have God destroying people for breaking the rules, then immediately changing that very rule to accomadate them. I dunno, doesn't seem right.

Does this help? (Seems like most of the people in this area of CF are not YEC, so it may be hard to get many opinions from YEC people.)

Actually it is harder to answer scientifically. The existence of land-bridges at various times in earth's history, along with the movements of the continents via plate tectonics, is something that can be verified geologically.

But for the change to meat-eating, you have not given a scientific answer; you have given a scriptural answer. While this does trace the appearance of meat-eating to the permission given by God, it does not answer the scientific question. How did they evolve to do so? When and how did their teeth change to grasp and chew meat instead of vegetation? When and how did their digestive system change to process meat instead of vegetation?

 

[gluadys]

Proves nothing. They also thought it was flat long before Darwin.

There is a serious difference between the ancient belief in a flat earth and the developing awareness of the antiquity of the earth.

A flat earth is the default position of primitive peoples who have never studied or thought out the consequences of (among other things) astronomical or marine observations. Philosophers in the period from 500 BCE to 200 CE (possibly earlier in China and among the Maya) worked out that the earth must be a sphere based on observations and logic.

In Christian Europe, an ancient earth is not a default position. The default assumption, based on an uncritical acceptance of scriptural chronology, is that creation occurred about 6000 years ago.

The move away from that default position, like the move away from the flat earth position, was based on observation of the evidence and logical deductions from them.

So rather than dismissing their conclusions, you should first ask: what convinced these Christians that the earth was much older than 6000 years?

The evidence that convinced them is still available for anyone to study. Unlike modern dating techniques like radiometry, all it takes is a hands-on acquaintance with the evidence and a modicum of logical deduction.

Once you have engaged with the evidence that convinced them, then the next step, should you wish to continue in the YEC position, is to find an alternate scientific explanation of the same evidence.

You will excuse me if I am not moved by quantity of paper as opposed to actual scientific evidence. Evolution is bankrupt because while it comes up with lots of explainations and theories, it does not come up with the necessary evidence that shows a workable mechanism for evolution. In other words evolution is good at writing checks it can not cash.

The peer-reviewed material lucaspa referred to is based directly on actual scientific evidence. These documents report the actual evidence collected in some detail, the actual experimental set-ups and actual results of experiments in the field and in the laboratory. They discuss what was researched, why it was researched, why the particular methodology was chosen, what the results were, whether the results answered the initial questions and how, and what the shortcomings of the experiment were, suggesting avenues of further research.

Waving it off as "a quantity of paper" does a serious injustice to the work of professional scientists. These are not journalistic reports for popular consumption which may well merit such dismissal. They are the primary vehicle for getting knowledge about actual scientific evidence from one scientist to another----and eventually to the general public as well.

I think you are getting this backwards. The flood was recorded a long time before anyone knew about or needed to explain geological columns. The column is just part of the evidence left behind by the flood.

The problem is that the flood is not recorded in the geologic column, and much is recorded in it that contradicts the hypothesis of a global flood.

It should be noted that evolutionists have the same problem as creationists when it comes to mammal distribution. The fossils of marsupials have been found world wide, therefore there must have been a method of intercontinental travel.

The problem is not that the fossils of marsupials have been found world-wide. From an evolutionary point of view that is to be expected. The problem is that there are only marsupial fossils found in Australia. Everywhere else there are also placental fossils found. Why not in Australia? If, at the conclusion of the flood, all extant marsupials and all extant placental mammals were on the ark, what prevented the placental mammals from using the same land bridge (or other means of travel) as the marsupials to get to Australia?

 

[gluadys]

I would strongly dispute that. Take for examples the law of relativety, the laws of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics etc. These are not assumptions or theoretical explainations these are science (knowledge) proven in full. They are laws.

This statement suggests that you have a faulty understanding of scientific terminology. You may be thinking, for example, that a theory, upon receiving sufficient evidentiary support, graduates into becoming a law. That is incorrect.

Consider for example that we have both a law of gravity and a theory of gravity. They are not the same thing. The law is a mathematical description of the effects of gravity on bodies. The theory is an explanation of why the law is what it is rather than some other mathematical equation. The law tells us what gravity does. The theory tells us why it works as it does.

Laws and theories both have a place in science. Theories never become laws any more than laws become theories.

From what I have studied the basic evolutionist model does not fit the evidence, where as the creationist (literal) model does.

I would be genuinely interested to know what reading and what evidence led you to this conclusion. How does the model of evolution, in your opinion, fail to fit the evidence? Which evidence does it not explain? How does the creation model fit the evidence? What about the evidence it does not explain?

I would like to point out at this point that even if I knew nothing of the theories of creation/evolution, I would believe in creation. Why?

Because I have total faith in Gods word and none in mans understanding.

Does that mean you have no faith in mans capacity to understand God's word? How then do you know what Gods word means?

btw: very glad (as a female) that you limited your skepticism to man. Maybe creationists need to replace all the male teachers in their churches with women who do not suffer from this serious handicap.

the basic principle of creation has never been disproven.

What basic principle is that?

Evolutionist theory has gone way beyond flawed. It is confused, it is contradictory. There are not gaps in understanding, there are chasms of credulity. There is a total lack of explaination as to the absence of evidence to the foundational theories of evolution.

Could you give some examples for these assertions? What contradictions have you found in the model of evolution? What confusion? What chasms of credulity? Where is evidence missing?

And btw, are you allowing the same latitude of incomplete knowledge and open questions to evolution as you are to creationism?

Evolution is not powered or motivated by any kind of search for true science. It is powered by the desperation of a humanistic society to dismiss God from their existance.
God will not be dismissed. He cannot be disproved. His creation speaks for itself.

Here you betray your most serious misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the need of some people to dismiss God from their lives. Nothing in science, including the theory of evolution, either proves or disproves the existence of God. More of the people who accept evolution believe in God and creation, than those who accept evolution and are also atheists. Many of those who accept evolution are Christians who fully agree with your last statement: [God's] creation speaks for itself.

I, too , have examined what creation says, from a Christian perspective, for much longer than you have--for longer, in fact, than you have even been alive. And I find that God's creation says old earth and evolution.

 

[gluadys]

I would like to suggest one book. The Bible. It seems odd that one can look at this book as just a poetic or figurative writing. It would seem to me that our creator would be capable of conveying truth to us in a way that would not require a PHD and years of analysis to understand the main points.

I agree. And in what pertains to salvation and Christian living, he has. You can't get much simpler than "Love God; love your neighbour." or "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved."

But not all of the bible is written at such a simple level. Some of it does take much study. A person needn't worry about it if they have little education or intelligence, or little time to do such study. What needs to be clear to all is clear to all. Much of the rest can be easily explained once the scholars have done their research. And if there are still obscurities, well they are grist for the scholars, but don't need to concern the average Joe or Jill too much as they are usually about technicalities, not anything very important.

By what measure do we decide what is literal and what is figurative? Is Jesus Christ literal or is He figurative as well?

As I have listened to the debate about this topic (young versus old) I find that the basis for both sides is "literal versus figurative" on this topic as well as many others. What I do not find is a yardstick by which the jump from literal to figuative is measured. What say ye?

First, a question for you. What difference does it make to you if a passage is literal or figurative? Take the parables. They are fiction. Does that make them unimportant? Does it mean they teach us nothing about God? How would their value increase if they were literal?

Similarly, would a section of the bible you think is literal necessarily lose its value if you discovered it was not? Why?

Secondly, though, you are right in that you do need a yardstick for deciding what is literal and what is figurative. It cannot be just a matter of personal preference, but based on a principle.

One of the things I have not been able to figure out is what yardstick people who call themselves literalists use. I find it very confusing, since at one moment they want me to believe a donkey can talk, yet at the next moment they do not want me to believe the earth is motionless. The bible says both of these things. Why is the first supposed to be literal and the second not?

To me, it makes much more sense to say neither is literal.

 

[gluadys]

Or how a couple fish and loaves could multiply into thousands and feed a group of thousands with much left over.

I'll try and post a more comprehensive response to this post later as it raises serious questions that deserve a serious answer.

But I just wanted to comment on this phrase in light of what is "literal".

Have you ever read the four stories (one in each gospel) closely? Where in the stories does it literally say the fish and loaves multiplied? Read them again, in close detail. You may be surprised at what you find.