Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

[T.i.m.o.t.h.y.]

Here is the irony, I have attempted to interpret Genesis 1 literally not metaphorically.
It is the literal interpretation of the Bible which leads to the anti-science rhetoric as found in this thread but also leaves no scope but to read Genesis 1 exactly as it is written.
The separation of day from night occurred either on day 1 or day 4 but not both, a metaphorical description is the way out in which case Genesis is a story which conveys a message and not an actual account.

That is what interpretation is all about.

 

[sjastro]

That is what interpretation is all about.

As this thread and others have shown interpretation is based on reading one's bias into the Bible.
The Bible cannot be used to contradict science while the opposite can be true where the Bible presents a historical account which can be attested or not through archaeology.
Geneses is not a historical account but a story as is much of the Old Testament.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible cannot be used to contradict science while the opposite can be true where the Bible presents a historical account which can be attested or not through archaeology.

Which, in itself, is interpreted.

 

[T.i.m.o.t.h.y.]

As this thread and others have shown interpretation is based on reading one's bias into the Bible.

There are two directions of interpretation. 1. Reading the text as it is. 2. Adding one's own bias to it.

The Bible cannot be used to contradict science while the opposite can be true where the Bible presents a historical account which can be attested or not through archaeology.

There are additional methods as well.

Geneses is not a historical account but a story as is much of the Old Testament.

There are many archaeological findings that attest to historical validity in Genesis.

 

[Astrid]

There are many archaeological findings that attest to historical validity in Genesis.

Really? Name one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Really? Name one.

The Euphrates river.

(Albeit not an "archaeological find" per se.)

 

[sjastro]

There are two directions of interpretation. 1. Reading the text as it is. 2. Adding one's own bias to it.

As I stated in the context of this thread and others interpretation of the Bible is based on bias, furthermore as mentioned previously a literal interpretation of the Bible exposes contradictions.

There are additional methods as well.

What methods are they?

There are many archaeological findings that attest to historical validity in Genesis.

What would they be?

 

[AV1611VET]

... furthermore as mentioned previously a literal interpretation of the Bible exposes contradictions.

No, it doesn't.

Only if you put two passages together and interpret them BOTH literally, when one is meant to be literal, and the other poetic.

For example, do these two passages contradict each other?

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Psalm 91:4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

 

[AV1611VET]

What would they be?

The Hittites.

Although mentioned several times in the Biblical texts, the actual existence of the Hittites was largely forgotten until the late 19th century CE. With the discovery of Hattusa in 1834 CE, the city that was for many years the capital of the Hittite Empire, the Hittites were finally recognized as one of the great superpowers of the ancient Middle East in the Late Bronze Age (1550 - 1200 BCE).

SOURCE

 

[Yttrium]

The Hittites.

I hear that archaeologists have uncovered extensive evidence of places called Egypt and Rome, too.

 

[AV1611VET]

I hear that archaeologists have uncovered extensive evidence of places called Egypt and Rome, too.

And astronomers found the moon too!

 

[driewerf]

And astronomers found the moon too!

Existence of the King's Cross Station has been confirmed, giving credibility to the Harry Potter Books.

 

[Astrid]

I hear that archaeologists have uncovered extensive evidence of places called Egypt and Rome, too.

I think Genesis mentions water, too.
Proof enough.

 

[AV1611VET]

Existence of the King's Cross Station has been confirmed, giving credibility to the Harry Potter Books.

I knew eventually fiction would rear its ugly head.

If it wasn't for fiction, academia wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think Genesis mentions water, too. Proof enough.

Where do you draw the line with the things mentioned in Genesis, and what standard do you use to do it?

My guess is science.

Sans cause-and-effect, of course.

 

[driewerf]

I knew eventually fiction would rear its ugly head.

Of course it had to. It shows very clearly how vapid that argument is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course it had to. It shows very clearly how vapid that argument is.

Merry Christmas!

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course it had to. It shows very clearly how vapid that argument is.

By the way.

One of your "vapid arguments" is at war with another, and real people are dying.

Unlike your fictional stories you use to come to the aid of science to help you out of a good point.

If it wasn't for the likes of J. K. Rowling, science would have to admit it really is "The Year of the LORD 2024."

 

[driewerf]

By the way.

One of your "vapid arguments" is at war with another, and real people are dying.

Unlike your fictional stories you use to come to the aid of science to help you out of a good point.

If it wasn't for the likes of J. K. Rowling, science would have to admit it really is "The Year of the LORD 2024."

I have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no clue what you are talking about.

LOL

Vaporized your own argument, did you?