- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,670
- 52,517
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
So?
Biblical and Jewish scholars were just as wrong back then, as they are today.
Upvote
0
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.
You're still forgetting the fact that Biblical and Jewish scholars were advocating for non-literal interpretations long before any knowledge of cosmic evolution came about, and how their arguments were based on the text itself, rather than an effort to appease science.
So? It means the idea that non-literal interpretations of Genesis have something to do with "cosmic evolution" isn't accurate. The text itself gives justification.
So you believe.Biblical and Jewish scholars were just as wrong back then, as they are today.
So? It means the idea that non-literal interpretations of Genesis have something to do with "cosmic evolution" isn't accurate.
I told you. From the fact that Rabbinical and Biblical scholars were advocating non-literal interpretations of Genesis long before science had said anything about "cosmic evolution".Where do you get this idea from?
I told you. From the fact that Rabbinical and Biblical scholars were advocating non-literal interpretations of Genesis long before science had said anything about "cosmic evolution".
Which renders the rest of your post moot.
Huh? Are you really under the impression that not only is there a singular entity called "academia", but that it also has a singular stated position on the interpretation of Genesis?What's academia's excuse today for not believing in a literal Genesis 1?
I assume it's because they believe in a literal cosmic evolution.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
What's academia's excuse today for not believing in a literal Genesis 1?
I assume it's because they believe in a literal cosmic evolution.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Huh? Are you really under the impression that not only is there a singular entity called "academia", but that it also has a singular stated position on the interpretation of Genesis?
Where did you get that from?
In my case, you are partly correct, brother AV. But there's more to why I don't read Genesis 1 literally than simply that "cosmic" evolution seems rationally palatable to me.
But wouldn't you agree that a literal Genesis 1 and a literal cosmic evolution are polar opposites?
Wow.
Let's try pictures.
Are these two polar opposites?
View attachment 360989
View attachment 360990
That depends on identifying the semiotics at play in the original Genesis account. Is the Hebrew account meant to be typological, chronological, cosmological/cosmogonic, poetic and polemical in form and purpose?
Hold on.
Let me ask my wife.
She said, "None of the above. It was meant to be literal."
The Lord is a Genius!
Interesting how the moon gets credit for possibly creating life on Earth, when all the moon did was cause our tides.
Who says that God wasn't there with it, doing it? Directing it. Shaping it. Not I. And not Moses.
If I go hunting with my hunting dog, and I shoot a pheasant, and my hunting dog retrieves it for me, who furnished the meal on my plate?
I, or the dog?
If God ordered the moon to create tides on the earth, who created life on the earth?
God, or the moon?
According to your video, it was the moon.
Look at the title of the video:
Did the Moon Create Life on Earth?
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?