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.
That is what interpretation is all about.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.
As this thread and others have shown interpretation is based on reading one's bias into the Bible.That is what interpretation is all about.
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 two directions of interpretation. 1. Reading the text as it is. 2. Adding one's own bias to it.As this thread and others have shown interpretation is based on reading one's bias into the Bible.
There are additional methods as well.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 many archaeological findings that attest to historical validity in Genesis.Geneses is not a historical account but a story as is much of the Old Testament.
Really? Name one.
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 two directions of interpretation. 1. Reading the text as it is. 2. Adding one's own bias to it.
What methods are they?There are additional methods as well.
What would they be?There are many archaeological findings that attest to historical validity in Genesis.
... furthermore as mentioned previously a literal interpretation of the Bible exposes contradictions.
What would they be?
I hear that archaeologists have uncovered extensive evidence of places called Egypt and Rome, too.
Existence of the King's Cross Station has been confirmed, giving credibility to the Harry Potter Books.And astronomers found the moon too!
Existence of the King's Cross Station has been confirmed, giving credibility to the Harry Potter Books.
I think Genesis mentions water, too. Proof enough.
Of course it had to. It shows very clearly how vapid that argument is.I knew eventually fiction would rear its ugly head.
Of course it had to. It shows very clearly how vapid that argument is.
Of course it had to. It shows very clearly how vapid that argument is.
I have no clue what you are talking about.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.
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?