Where do you draw the line?

[ShilohCity]

but if you believe the miraculous claims of the bible, such as Jesus miracles and resurrection, then why is the literal account of creation too ridiculous for you to believe?

 

[notto]

Because we would need to ignore what we know about Gods creation to accept it. The literal account is 'too ridiculous' to believe. The evidence simply falsifies it. If the evidence didn't falsify a young earth and special creation, I wouldn't find it too ridiculous to believe.

The miracles of Jesus and the resurection are not falsified by what we find in God's creation. They are accepted on faith.

 

[ShilohCity]

Because we would need to ignore what we know about Gods creation to accept it. The literal account is 'too ridiculous' to believe. The evidence simply falsifies it. If the evidence didn't falsify a young earth and special creation, I wouldn't find it too ridiculous to believe.

The miracles of Jesus and the resurection are not falsified by what we find in God's creation. They are accepted on faith.

But I know from 'God's Creation' that a person who has died can not come back from the dead. This is proven more than any scientific evidence for either evolution or creation. We see this every day. Why believe the one, on faith, and not the other?

 

[notto]

But I know from 'God's Creation' that a person who has died can not come back from the dead. This is proven more than any scientific evidence for either evolution or creation. We see this every day. Why believe the one, on faith, and not the other?

There is no scientific evidence that miraculous resurection can not happen (that is why it is miraculous).

There is plenty of evidence that shows us that the earth is old and that all animals were not created at the same time.

Young earth creationism has been falsified by what we find in God's own creation. Miraculous resurection and the divinity of Christ has not.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

But I know from 'God's Creation' that a person who has died can not come back from the dead. This is proven more than any scientific evidence for either evolution or creation. We see this every day. Why believe the one, on faith, and not the other?

Because the Creation story has been falsified.

 

[gluadys]

As you've said, YECs who hold to Biblical inerrancy do not believe that a word for word, exactly what it says interpretation is necessary. We believe that an interpretation that fits with the style, context, etc. of the text, in accordance with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in required, quite the same as TE's, actually.

Glad to hear you say that. It puts the question where it ought to be. Where we differ is not over literal vs. metaphor, but over the question of identifying style, context, etc. Perhaps over whether certain styles (e.g. myth, legend, drama, fiction, midrash) are even consistent with inspiration. That is a huge question. But probably belongs in a different forum.

 

[ShilohCity]

There is no scientific evidence that miraculous resurection can not happen (that is why it is miraculous).

There is plenty of evidence that shows us that the earth is old and that all animals were not created at the same time.

Young earth creationism has been falsified by what we find in God's own creation. Miraculous resurection and the divinity of Christ has not.

So Frankenstien could be a true story?

 

[notto]

So Frankenstien could be a true story?

I don't remember any miracles mentioned in Frankenstein.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

No - I believe Mary Shelley never pretended it was anything but fiction.

 

[notto]

I'm getting a weird ArkGuy vibe here.

 

[Dracil]

Ooh, I'd almost forgotten about him.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

I thought about him too - but more to do with mhess13's posting.

 

[artofwar]

Just a question for the people who dont take the Bible as literal, do you believe Jesus actually Died and then rose from the dead in 3 days?

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Yes but I'm willing to listen to alternatives.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I think it has already been demonstrated that nobody really takes the bible literally. It's just a matter of where you draw the line.

 

[ShilohCity]

I think it has already been demonstrated that nobody really takes the bible literally. It's just a matter of where you draw the line.

so we are right back at the original question: where do you draw the line? I think i have an answer for myself, where i draw the line.

If the style (such as poetry) or context (such as a parable) obviously indicate that what is said is not literal, I do not count it as literal. However in a lack of such a clear distinction, i believe it to be literal. I believe the Bible to be true and literal unless stated otherwise.

I find nothing within the text indicating that the creation and flood accounts are not literal, therefore i believe them to be literal.

 

[notto]

I find nothing within the text indicating that the creation and flood accounts are not literal, therefore i believe them to be literal.

And others obviously disagree with your interpretation. Especially when comparing the text to the actual creation.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

I find nothing within the text indicating that the creation and flood accounts are not literal, therefore i believe them to be literal.

That is your right. However you are believing something that has been falsified.

Really about the same as believing the Germans won the Second World War. You can believe it but it has been falsified.

 

[statrei]

We use words without paying attention to what they really mean. Consider the following sentence: "We played a game of softball last night and they kicked our butts." Is that a literal statement? Literal has been overused. Most times people mean factual, but even there the distinction is not clear. Moses wrote the book of Genesis. There is no evidence that he was commissioned by God to do so, even though many appear to believe that. "Falsification" of the entire Genesis account does not falsify the fact of creation. Some of us recall the false biography of Adolf Hitler that was foisted upon an unwary public several years ago. No one would claim that by showing that the biography was a fake we also showed that Adolf Hitler did not live. That would be a ludicrous conclusion. Certainly, Christians who insist that the Gen. account is an accurate factual account of the process of original creation provide ammunition for those who do not believe. But those who conclude that by exposing the flaws in the Genesis account they have effectively proven that there was no creation are in no more noble company. Both sides are guilty of faulty logic.

 

[Bushido216]

So Frankenstien could be a true story?

You misunderstand.

Two ideas.

God could create the world in six days six thousand years ago. (One more six and then where would we be?)

God could resurrect someone.

BOTH are true.

God did create the world in six days six thousand years ago.

God did resurrect someone.

The second is true, the first is not.