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.
ebia said:I think it's an unbelievable waste to assume that the first thing that springs into my head when I read the bible is the correct and only message God wishes to convey to me.
That's fine, but it doesn't agree with:Uphill Battle said:I don't believe there is only one thing to learn from Genesis. I just do not doubt that God created the earth like he said he did.
It takes no lengths or effort at all. I read it, I believe it. Two step process.
ebia said:That's fine, but it doesn't agree with:
ebia said:Because finding the other meanings requires more effort than is implicit in "It takes no effort at all..."
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it. Is there more than one meaning to Genesis Chapter 1 or not?Uphill Battle said:did I say other meanings? no. I said there is more to learn in Genesis apart from the creation. That doesn't mean I am looking for "what God said, and what he REALLY meant."
ebia said:You seem to want to have your cake and eat it. Is there more than one meaning to Genesis Chapter 1 or not?
ebia said:Those lessons are meanings.
Call it what you will, the "lessons" are there, and are independent of whether or not the "literal meaning" of the text is literally true. The important truths you and I derive from the text will be very similar, and require similar amounts of effort.Uphill Battle said:semantics. When you say different meaning, you mean something apart from the text. Something different than the explicit writing. I mean that we can derive more truth from it, without having to believe that it isn't literal.
ebia said:Call it what you will, the "lessons" are there, and are independent of whether or not the "literal meaning" of the text is literally true. The important truths you and I derive from the text will be very similar, and require similar amounts of effort.
So, if we are not disagreeing about the major lessons to be learned, all we are disagreeing about is whether the literal meaning of the text is true or not.
It takes no more effort to believe that the truths/lessons/whatever you choose to call them are what God intends us to learn from them and that the story itself is NOT literally true, than it does to believe the truths/lessons/whatever you choose to call them are what God intends us to learn from them and that the story itself IS literally true.
Again you over-simplify your own case, to make it appear more straightforward than it actually is. You have acknowledged that it is intended as something more than a literal text.Uphill Battle said:My assertion is that there is no reasonable arguement in my mind that it was intended as anything other than literal truth.
ebia said:Again you over-simplify your own case, to make it appear more straightforward than it actually is. You have acknowledged that it is intended as something more than a literal text.
But you don't think God intended us to learn those things from it?Uphill Battle said:no, I haven't. I said you could learn alot from it. such as
The power of God.
The creativity of God
Some of his nature (spirit)
his timlessness (existed before the beginning)
I said "more", not "other".but I don't have to acknowledge it as anything other than literal text to see this.
ebia said:But you don't think God intended us to learn those things from it?
I said "more", not "other".
It doesn't. It means that there are (a lot of) intended meanings in there that are independent of whether or not it is a literal accurate text. It's primary purpose - to teach us that kind of stuff - doesn't depend on whether or not it is literally true.Uphill Battle said:sure he intended us to learn as much as we could from it. Exactly how does that change it from a literal interpretation?
ebia said:It doesn't. It means that there are (a lot of) intended meanings in there that are independent of whether or not it is a literal accurate text. It's primary purpose - to teach us that kind of stuff - doesn't depend on whether or not it is literally true.
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?