- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,287
- 52,674
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
Who's setting the requirements?They're both theologically wrong because they require a deceptive god.
Thanks for the QED.
Who's setting the requirements?
I have no problem with that. The whole creation event was unnatural. Plants and animals don't naturally come into existence fully formed. Adam woul have had a thirty year old body when he was formed. No problem. Trees would be decades old. No problem.
But God included into all living things a clock. That tells us when they were formed. Not their apparent age. So why say 'I made this today but I'm going to set the clock so it says I made it a million years ago'.
Why?
No, not everyone. He only "told" people who read Genesis literally.
I chose to say it didn't happen the way you choose to read it. You don't own the meaning of the text, you merely ascribe meaning to it.God has told both of us the same exact thing thru the Bible. You chose to say it didn’t happen the way it is written I choose to say it did. The message wasn’t different it was our choice to believe it that was different.
I wonder if "death of the author" applies here.I chose to say it didn't happen the way you choose to read it. You don't own the meaning of the text, you merely ascribe meaning to it.
I chose to say it didn't happen the way you choose to read it. You don't own the meaning of the text, you merely ascribe meaning to it.
Exodus 20 (and I assume here you are particularly referring to Ex 20:11) isn't "proof" oF anything--it's commentary.Well Genesis isn’t the only evidence of a 6 day creation there’s also Exodus 20. I’m assuming that your under the impression that Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3 did not take place on the same day? This may be plausible looking only at the creation account in Genesis but it doesn’t line up with what we read in Exodus 20 where God said He made the earth and the heavens and everything in them in 6 days. So exodus 20 is proof that Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3 took place on the same day.
I wonder if "death of the author" applies here.
What further points are there to make, when you're demonstrating the points I make?I've noticed you say this every time you have no response.
My Dental ChallengeIf scientists studied Adam the day he was created do you think they would conclude that he was 1 day old? Probably not because fully grown men do come into existence in one day. The same situation occurs with the rocks they don’t form in one day so seeing rocks that are fully developed would lead them to believe that they were formed millions of years ago. It’s not that God made them appear to be old it’s that God fully developed them that’s why they appear to be old.
God has told both of us the same exact thing thru the Bible. You chose to say it didn’t happen the way it is written I choose to say it did. The message wasn’t different it was our choice to believe it that was different.
In other words, you agree with him?I chose to say it didn't happen the way you choose to read it. You don't own the meaning of the text, you merely ascribe meaning to it.
I chose to say it didn't happen the way you choose to read it. You don't own the meaning of the text, you merely ascribe meaning to it.
I suppose, but what we are really talking about here is the "calling God a liar" stance of the creationists. Figurative readings of Genesis are almost as old as the book itself and have been suggested by reputable Christian theologians in the past without incurring the kind of wrath dispensed by modern creationists.I agree with you that we all come to the Genesis text (or any biblical text for that matter) and choose how we'll read it, but I think it's an oversimplification to say that any and all of us "merely ascribe" meaning to it. This could be the case if all readings are somehow equal, but I get the feeling that not all of them are equal.
If they were equal, would we all be here scrambling among ourselves with verbal fisticuffs over the 'real' meaning of Creation accounts in Genesis in light of the Theory of Evolution?
I suppose, but what we are really talking about here is the "calling God a liar" stance of the creationists. Figurative readings of Genesis are almost as old as the book itself and have been suggested by reputable Christian theologians in the past without incurring the kind of wrath dispensed by modern creationists.
Either that, or Philo of Alexandria popularized it.Figurative readings of Genesis are almost as old as the book itself ...
Philo's deployment of allegory to harmonize Jewish scripture, mainly the Torah, with Greek philosophy was the first documented of its kind, and thereby often misunderstood. Many critics of Philo assumed his allegorical perspective would lend credibility to the notion of legend over historicity. Philo often advocated a literal understanding of the Torah and the historicity of such described events, while at other times favoring allegorical readings.
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?