Here is how Augustine read Genesis

[busterdog]

Spade, as someone who writes a lot (I am an attorney), I have always held that in almost every case, if there is a misinterpretation of a writing, it is the fault of the writer in not making himself clear enough. So, my bad.

Of course, that rule does not apply to God, since we as readers, misinterpret His writing all the time, and it is always our fault!

Come now, are you really an attorney? If you were, you would realize that a Judge's failure to read what you write is the biggest problem with lack of understanding.

Oh wait. YOu said misinterpretation, not just plain ignorance. The former applies where someone has actually considered what you wrote.

 

[Vance]

Come now, are you really an attorney? If you were, you would realize that a Judge's failure to read what you write is the biggest problem with lack of understanding.

Oh wait. YOu said misinterpretation, not just plain ignorance. The former applies where someone has actually considered what you wrote.

Oh, now, let's not underestimate a judge's ability to also misunderstand on the off-chance that they actually do read the brief!

 

[busterdog]

Oh, now, let's not underestimate a judge's ability to also misunderstand on the off-chance that they actually do read the brief!

I feel like I should be snorting while I laugh like a nerdy professional in a Dilbert cartoon.

The funny thing is my immediate impression, which overcomes my respect for your writing. And that is that I am laughing at all the CF members who now have to endure not one but two lawyers posting in origins theology. Revenge is sweet.

 

[Vance]

It must be a sign of the Apocalypse.

"And, yea, in that day, all the attorneys shall gather in one place and dispute . . ."

 

[Deamiter]

Of course, that rule does not apply to God, since we as readers, misinterpret His writing all the time, and it is always our fault!

Of course since God didn't write any of the Bible and is only directly quoted in a few isolated places, it's probably still the author's fault. Unless of course you can come up with a new definition of theopneustos that DOESN'T mean "inspire."

[/pendantic commentary]

 

[Vance]

Hey, Deamiter, I like the term "Evolutionary Creationist", rather than the tired old Theistic Evolutionist! I think it really does sound the right note in many ways, pointing out that we still believe in God's Creation, and His involvement in a creative process, and doesn't confuse people with the idea of mere "theism".

 

[gluadys]

Hello Vance,

As far as I know, Evolution is only at the hypothesis stage. I don't recall that it has been elevated to a theory much less a fact since it hasn't met all the requirement for the scientific method to qualify.

I don't want to muck up a good thread either, so if you want to continue this conversation, let's do it in a new thread.

But I think the position you are taking here can only be taken by someone who has serious misunderstanding of both the scientific method and the evidence for evolution.

 

[Vance]

I don't want to muck up a good thread either, so if you want to continue this conversation, let's do it in a new thread.

But I think the position you are taking here can only be taken by someone who has serious misunderstanding of both the scientific method and the evidence for evolution.

Right, I left that one alone for the nonce, since it really didn't pertain, but Gluadys is correct. Evolution is, indeed, a theory. In fact, most Creationist like to refer to it as "just a theory"!

 

[Spade48d]

Right, I left that one alone for the nonce, since it really didn't pertain, but Gluadys is correct. Evolution is, indeed, a theory. In fact, most Creationist like to refer to it as "just a theory"!

But I think the position you are taking here can only be taken by someone who has serious misunderstanding of both the scientific method and the evidence for evolution

.

I concede and apologize. I don't follow it very much and I must have got some really bad unreliable info which I haven't checked into like I should have before spouting off like an ignoramus.. Thanks for pointing me in the correct direction. I decided to go back and remove the statement. Having had time to look into it I find it flawed. Not an excuse but an explanation, I was merely parroting something told me by a respected minister.

If I learn nothing more from my brief experience here on CF, I will very grateful for this personal lesson. You guys have jarred me awake to truly see that we must be as the Bereans. How easily we accept things from those we respect without careful enough study before taking as our own or even passing it on to others like nothing more than gossip.

Incidentally, someone told me that at the apocalypse , lawyers will be overwhelmed filing fire damage suits. Maybe they can get some help from above, penning depositions. [grins]

Thanks again for the sending me in the right direction.

 

[Vance]

Spade, no need to apologize at all, your questions and probing are, indeed, part of the "test everything" mandate that we are given. True, it is best to reserve dogmatic statements until we have had a chance to review it thoroughly on our own (if we need to make dogmatic statements on a given point at all!), but we all start with what we are taught by those we respect.

Good luck in your expanded studies!

 

[Renton405]

Im my opinion, augustine is one of the best interperators of the bible that Ive read(Second the Aquinas). his interperatation of Revelation is just like this also.. I also don't believe the literal 24 hour day creation. Just as the article lists it shows that the bible has both literal and figurative parts and was conveying it so people could understand God in his 6 peroids of creation more easily. Really great article..