Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[lasthero]

Jinx, buy me a coke.

Don't know what you're talking about.

 

[selfinflikted]

"Pinch, Poke, owe me a Coke." Never heard that?

 

[KWCrazy]

Completely false. Even at the birth of christianity there were serious questions as to the antiquity of the Earth. Saint of Augistine of Hippo had this to say in his Genesis commentary from the 5th century AD:

4 centuries later. You said at the beginning. We all know that at some point heresy began to get a strong foothold in organized religion.

 

[Loudmouth]

4 centuries later. You said at the beginning. We all know that at some point heresy began to get a strong foothold in organized religion.

Just 100 years after the First Council of Nicea where modern christianity was born. Also, St. Augustine was warning against the heresy of young earth creationism.

 

[keith99]

The main truth is that salvation and eternal life can only be given to a person from Jesus. Only Christianity has that in a risen savior, Jesus Christ.

Hardly. Unless the claim you are making is that the Christian myth is true and the other risen savior myths are false.

If so the claim is trivial without showing evidence that Jesus actually rose from the dead.

 

[KWCrazy]

Just 100 years after the First Council of Nicea where modern christianity was born. Also, St. Augustine was warning against the heresy of young earth creationism.

Anyone who teaches that the Bible is not to be believed is a false teacher and a heretic; definitely not a saint in my book. But then, there really are no saints. "There are none righteous; no, not one."

 

[lasthero]

Anyone who teaches that the Bible is not to be believed is a false teacher and a heretic; definitely not a saint in my book. But then, there really are no saints. "There are none righteous; no, not one."

So, basically, when you said 'nobody disputed it', what you actually mean is that people who dispute it aren't actual Christians, therefore they don't count?

 

[keith99]

I want to raise a point about he title being slightly incorrect and charitable.

Creationists are not insisting on a literal reading of the Bible. They are insisting on a literal reading of a translation of the Bible.

This is an important distinction.

Most here are aware that:

Thou shall not kill is better translated Thou shall not murder.

But what of the word in Hebrew? It turns out the LITERAL meaning of the word is to rend or tear apart. As in the way a wild animal would tear its prey.

Should we then take this literally and that the act of tearing apart is what is forbidden? That now murder is fine as long as we do it by strangulation? And killing a dangerous wild animal is wrong is we tear it apart in so doing?

Few if any would say yes to this. But it is where we end up if we take the most literal meaning of the word in the original language.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Pinch, Poke, owe me a Coke." Never heard that?

I thought it was: One, two, three; you owe me a Coke!

 

[Loudmouth]

Anyone who teaches that the Bible is not to be believed is a false teacher and a heretic; definitely not a saint in my book. But then, there really are no saints. "There are none righteous; no, not one."

Why does the Bible need to be literal in order to be believed?

 

[BrianJK]

Why does the Bible need to be literal in order to be believed?

If you could call any part you want figurative, then the whole thing is pretty much nullified because you could just say whatever you didn't like stood for something else.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you could call any part you want figurative, then the whole thing is pretty much nullified because you could just say whatever you didn't like stood for something else.

I would think that the parts with talking animals, magical tress, etc. would be obvious allegory, but maybe that's me. Are you saying that none of Aesop's Fables hold any truth because none of those stories literally happened?

 

[BrianJK]

I would think that the parts with talking animals, magical tress, etc. would be obvious allegory, but maybe that's me. Are you saying that none of Aesop's Fables hold any truth because none of those stories literally happened?

Fables can hold truth, but that doesn't mean the Bible is figurative.

 

[Split Rock]

If you could call any part you want figurative, then the whole thing is pretty much nullified because you could just say whatever you didn't like stood for something else.

Or one could reason that if a passage conflicts with our species' collective understanding of reality, that it should not be interpreted literally.

 

[Split Rock]

Fables can hold truth, but that doesn't mean the Bible is figurative.

Does GEN lose its truth if parts of it are figurative?

 

[KWCrazy]

I would think that the parts with talking animals, magical tress, etc. would be obvious allegory, but maybe that's me. Are you saying that none of Aesop's Fables hold any truth because none of those stories literally happened?

What about floating ax heads, walking on water, water into wine, or other items on this list. Are they all allegory? How about these? I presume you have evidence to back your assertion.

 

[Loudmouth]

What about floating ax heads, walking on water, water into wine, or other items on this list. Are they all allegory? How about these? I presume you have evidence to back your assertion.

I would presume that you have evidence that these events actually happened as you claim?

 

[Loudmouth]

Fables can hold truth, but that doesn't mean the Bible is figurative.

The mountains of evidence around us would certainly indicate that a literal translation can not be true. So it would seem that you have two choices: a falsified Genesis or a figurative one. Take your pick.

 

[KWCrazy]

I would presume that you have evidence that these events actually happened as you claim?

The title of the thread is "Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?" If you reject the miracles of the Bible you reject the Bible in its entirety, which defeats the purpose of the thread. This is a derailment of the topic. It's not about why people believe the Bible, but rather a specific interpretation.

 

[Loudmouth]

The title of the thread is "Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?" If you reject the miracles of the Bible you reject the Bible in its entirety, which defeats the purpose of the thread. This is a derailment of the topic. It's not about why people believe the Bible, but rather a specific interpretation.

Do you reject the evidence from the creation around us?