Two Creation Accounts or One?

[Aryeh]

I have no idea how the 6th/8th day creation reconciliation began, or where it came from. It may be unspoken and/or underrepresented, but it is a very popular idea that has permeated several denominations.

 

[Speedwell]

I know.

Like calling it a "frame story."

Isn't that about the weirdest you've ever heard!?

It's almost like I made that term up, isn't it?

Incidentally, how do you reconcile them?

I see no need to.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So our interpretation of scripture is supposed to be determined by the doctrine we want it to reveal?

Welcome to the world of doctrine revealed in scripture. Notice how that idea still allows multiple denominations. We might as well interpret scripture to agree with the findings of science.

 

[AV1611VET]

We might as well interpret scripture to agree with the findings of science.

In that case, how would you interpret this?

Genesis 1:1a In the beginning God ...

 

[TLK Valentine]

In that case, how would you interpret this?

Genesis 1:1a In the beginning God ...

It's a sentence fragment. There's nothing to interpret, since it doesn't even express a complete thought.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a sentence fragment. There's nothing to interpret, since it doesn't even express a complete thought.

Science is truly myopic, isn't it?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In that case, how would you interpret this?

Genesis 1:1a In the beginning God ...

Well, so far, I fail to see any challenge in interpreting that to be consistent with the findings of science.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Science is truly myopic, isn't it?

We're not talking about science; we're talking about grammar.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, so far, I fail to see any challenge in interpreting that to be consistent with the findings of science.

Whose fault is that? science's or God's?

 

[AV1611VET]

We're not talking about science; we're talking about grammar.

Science can't touch grammar, can it?

Looks like science is SOL (short on luck).

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Science can't touch grammar, can it?

Looks like science is SOL (short on luck).

Your gloat reflex seems to set off at inappropriate moments.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Science can't touch grammar, can it?

Looks like science is SOL (short on luck).

Science can't address your inability to express a complete thought unless you want it to.

You don't.

Would you have science chew your food for you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your gloat reflex seems to set off at inappropriate moments.

Just don't say something like this:

We might as well interpret scripture to agree with the findings of science.

... then, when I give you Scripture to interpret to agree with science, short circuit yourself.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just don't say something like this:... then, when I give you Scripture to interpret to agree with science, short circuit yourself.

Perhaps if you have given a complete thought to interpret?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science can't address your inability to express a complete thought unless you want it to.

I'm not interested right now in what science can't do.

If you want me to believe you might as well interpret Scripture according to science, you're going to have to show me the toughest passage of them all:

In the beginning, God ...

The passage that carries 100% Christian denominational agreement.

Remember what we're addressing here?

Notice how that idea still allows multiple denominations.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm not interested right now in what science can't do.

Good -- let's focus instead on what you can't do.

If you want me to believe you might as well interpret Scripture according to science, you're going to have to show me the toughest passage of them all:

In the beginning, God ...

The passage that carries 100% Christian denominational agreement.

Very telling that "the passage that carries 100% Christian denominational agreement" doesn't actually say anything -- it's only half a thought.

Even more telling that in order to achieve your alleged "100% Christian denominational agreement, you had to stop before you got to a verb.

What's the matter? Do they only agree up until it's time for God to actually do something?

Remember what we're addressing here?

Your failed attempts to shuck and jive -- as always.

 

[AV1611VET]

-- it's only half a thought.

Then I'd say it's about twice more than what scientists can handle.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then I'd say it's about twice more than what scientists can handle.

You'd say that, and if it weren't for children such as the ones at your Sunday school, you'd never find anyone who'd believe it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You'd say that, and if it weren't for children such as the ones at your Sunday school, you'd never find anyone who'd believe it.

LOL

I'm talking about adult Sunday school.

I enjoy telling adults how atheists handle Bible stories.

 

[TLK Valentine]

LOL

I'm talking about adult Sunday school.

So you claim.

I enjoy telling adults how atheists handle Bible stories.

I'm sure you enjoy a captive audience -- especially one that only hears your side.