Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you know which question you want you can quote it yourself. I do not know what question you are referring to.

It is quite bad that he's going through these lengths too. Quite bad and quite sad.

 

[Piers Plowman]

Well if you have me on ignore, then that doesn't work since I can still get you @-ing me... which is a very bad oversight on this website's ignore function since it very much defeats the point of it really.

But if you want the question, I'll just do it here:
And is the faith of not believing in a literal Genesis greater, lesser or equal to believing in a literal Genesis?

And even with addressing your claim, why is then that all the major Christian denominations do not adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, especially Catholicism?

What 'ignore'?

 

[CoreyD]

So did Jesus.

Notice here, where He quotes from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as authoritative Scripture.

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

(Genesis 1:27)

Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

(Genesis 2:24)

I like how Mark puts it.
However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ Mark 10:6

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What 'ignore'?

Since you are new I'll walk you through it.
Click on a person's icon.
You'll then get a box appearing with all various information.
Go the very bottom of that box and click the 'More options' button.
At the very bottom of that dropbox, you'll see a button that says 'ignore'.
Click it, and you'll never see a post from that person again nor get notifications from them if they reply/quote you etc. Though if you do, you'll get a prompt on any thread they're in that says "view content from ignored posters", which I think defeats the object of the ignore button, but it's a good test of self control.

Anywho...

Going back to my question:
And is the faith of not believing in a literal Genesis greater, lesser or equal to believing in a literal Genesis?

And even with addressing your claim, why is then that all the major Christian denominations do not adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, especially Catholicism?

 

[Piers Plowman]

Since you are new I'll walk you through it.
Click on a person's icon.
You'll then get a box appearing with all various information.
Go the very bottom of that box and click the 'More options' button.
At the very bottom of that dropbox, you'll see a button that says 'ignore'.
Click it, and you'll never see a post from that person again nor get notifications from them if they reply/quote you etc. Though if you do, you'll get a prompt on any thread they're in that says "view content from ignored posters", which I think defeats the object of the ignore button, but it's a good test of self control.

Anywho...

Going back to my question:
And is the faith of not believing in a literal Genesis greater, lesser or equal to believing in a literal Genesis?

And even with addressing your claim, why is then that all the major Christian denominations do not adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, especially Catholicism?

Going back to my question:
What 'ignore'?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Going back to my question:
What 'ignore'?

... That entire process I just talked about.

Now back TO MY questions:
And is the faith of not believing in a literal Genesis greater, lesser or equal to believing in a literal Genesis?

And even with addressing your claim, why is then that all the major Christian denominations do not adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, especially Catholicism?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well if you have me on ignore, then that doesn't work since I can still get you @-ing me... which is a very bad oversight on this website's ignore function since it very much defeats the point of it really.

But if you want the question, I'll just do it here:
And is the faith of not believing in a literal Genesis greater, lesser or equal to believing in a literal Genesis?

And even with addressing your claim, why is then that all the major Christian denominations do not adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, especially Catholicism?

Them ignoring you won't affect how you see their posts or any "references" they make to you. On the other hand, I have discovered that for posters that you ignore, not only do you not see their posts or threads, you don't get notifications even if they reply to you or mention you. It's how I keep from replying to people not worth replying to. Cheers.

 

[Astrid]

How does 'Ignore' function even work on this site? I'm still getting notifications?

Like this

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Them ignoring you won't affect how you see their posts or any "references" they make to you. On the other hand, I have discovered that for posters that you ignore, not only do you not see their posts or threads, you don't get notifications even if they reply to you or mention you. It's how I keep from replying to people not worth replying to. Cheers.

Fair enough.

 

[AV1611VET]

So Subduction Zone is now 'academia'? They must be flattered by that promotion.

Did you see the smileys that came with it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Did you see the smileys that came with it?

I saw one person liking it and one person agreeing with it.

Hardly the vicious horde you imagine it to be, but you have a known persecution complex.

 

[AV1611VET]

So Subduction Zone is now 'academia'? They must be flattered by that promotion.

Want more?

Mark Twain once defined faith as "believing what you know ain't so." I give Wise credit for openly admitting the evidence is against him, and he depends instead on his religious beliefs.

Faith is believing in something you know ain’t so.
-Mark Twain

 

[AV1611VET]

I saw one person liking it and one person agreeing with it.

Hardly the vicious horde you imagine it to be, but you have a known persecution complex.

Keep looking.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Want more?

So people can quote Mark Twain? THE HORROR! THE HORROOORRR!

Again, your persecution complex is showing.

 

[AV1611VET]

So people can quote Mark Twain? THE HORROR! THE HORROOORRR!

Again, your persecution complex is showing.

QV please:

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
Mark Twain

I prefer facts over faith.

Had enough?

I got more.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

QV please:



Had enough?

I got more.

I'll repeat:
So people can quote Mark Twain? THE HORROR! THE HORROOORRR!

Again, your persecution complex is showing.

 

[BCP1928]

I am interested in hearing the viewpoint which you use.

That's a long story, inappropriate to this forum. You would have to learn something about the history of Christian doctrine, all the way back to the Jews whose book it is and work your way through the Apostolic Fathers, and so on.. Non-literal interpretations of Genesis are as old as the book itself with the accurate historicity of the book more or less taken for granted up until a few centuries ago simply because there was no other information available on the subject of our origins. The Bible has always been what Christians believe, but it didn't become why we believe it until after the Reformation and then only for Protestants. The follow-on notions of literal inerrancy, plenary verbal inspiration, self-interpretability and perspicuity which form the basis of modern YECism are 19th century developments, crafted more as a reaction to Higher Criticism at the time, rather than evolution. As I said, it's a long story, but the bottom line is that most Christians don't see the literal inerrancy of Genesis as a salvation issue nor the theory of evolution as a threat to their faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

Non-literal interpretations of Genesis are as old as the book itself with the accurate historicity of the book more or less taken for granted up until a few centuries ago simply because there was no other information available on the subject of our origins.

Are you saying the Genesis creation story was misinterpreted as literal, until a few centuries ago?

And if so, are you saying it was misinterpreted because "there was no other information available on the subject"?

 

[BCP1928]

Are you saying the Genesis creation story was misinterpreted as literal, until a few centuries ago?

And if so, are you saying it was misinterpreted because "there was no other information available on the subject"?

I am saying that its historicity was assumed but not seen as necessary by all theologians and a variety of opinions existed. There were, and are as well, various schools of thought on divine inspiration. Any particular view of Genesis can only be called a "misinterpretation" if it fails to support essential Christian doctrine.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am saying that its historicity was assumed but not seen as necessary by all theologians and a variety of opinions existed.

Not necessary to what? salvation? or something else?

There were, and are as well, various schools of thought on divine inspiration.

Okay.

Which one is the right one?

Any particular view of Genesis can only be called a "misinterpretation" if it fails to support essential Christian doctrine.

I would say not just Genesis, but any of the 66 books, if they fail to support essential Christian doctrine.

Whether essential Christian doctrine or otherwise.