Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[DAII]

You could just answer the Zerubbabel question with another copy and paste job.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

sigh...Im gonna say this one last time. It's not a matter of ACCEPTING. Its not about authority or inerrency. It's about IN TER PRE TATION.

You keep taking my acceptance but different interpretation and turning that into me not accepting it.

Last time.

Interpretation? Let me rephrase my question "How do you interpret Genesis 1 without taking it as a literal account and maintain biblical inerrancy?"

I know you think I'm being a smart elleck, but I'm not. I really don't understand your point of view, I don't think it makes sense, but maybe you if you more fully explained your position, and why it is an error (from the bible, not from science) to interpret Genesis 1 as a literal account I would at least understand where your coming from, even if I didn't agree.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The issue is one of IN TER PRE TATION. I don't take Genesis as a literal account of creation. I do take it to be about creation.

I await your IN TER PRE TATION

Originally Posted by Praxeas

And I already gave an example of the whole "evening/morning" issue. It's not meant to be taken literal.

My quetion to you then is what IN THE TEXT OF GENESIS 1causes you to INTERPRET it as figurative/symbolic. My assumption (admitted assumption, feel free to correct it) is that you arrive at this conclusion NOT based from the text of scripture, but from the arguments of so-called science.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Just because something is not a literal account of creation does not mean it isn't an account of creation

So in exactly what way is Genesis 1 an account of creation if you don't accept the ORDER or the TIME FRAME given?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Interpretation? Let me rephrase my question "How do you interpret Genesis 1 without taking it as a literal account and maintain biblical inerrancy?"

I know you think I'm being a smart elleck, but I'm not. I really don't understand your point of view, I don't think it makes sense, but maybe you if you more fully explained your position, and why it is an error (from the bible, not from science) to interpret Genesis 1 as a literal account I would at least understand where your coming from, even if I didn't agree.

I await your IN TER PRE TATION

My quetion to you then is what IN THE TEXT OF GENESIS 1causes you to INTERPRET it as figurative/symbolic. My assumption (admitted assumption, feel free to correct it) is that you arrive at this conclusion NOT based from the text of scripture, but from the arguments of so-called science.

So in exactly what way is Genesis 1 an account of creation if you don't accept the ORDER or the TIME FRAME given?

It is how they call out the errancy of the scripture.

Historical records reference names of people and don't use poetic expressions.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Interpretation? Let me rephrase my question "How do you interpret Genesis 1 without taking it as a literal account and maintain biblical inerrancy?"

I know you think I'm being a smart elleck, but I'm not. I really don't understand your point of view, I don't think it makes sense, but maybe you if you more fully explained your position, and why it is an error (from the bible, not from science) to interpret Genesis 1 as a literal account I would at least understand where your coming from, even if I didn't agree.

I await your IN TER PRE TATION

My quetion to you then is what IN THE TEXT OF GENESIS 1causes you to INTERPRET it as figurative/symbolic. My assumption (admitted assumption, feel free to correct it) is that you arrive at this conclusion NOT based from the text of scripture, but from the arguments of so-called science.

So in exactly what way is Genesis 1 an account of creation if you don't accept the ORDER or the TIME FRAME given?

Jason when it comes to literalism, try answering the "Zerubbabel Question."

The reason that you can't answer that question is because the genealogies were never intended to be taken literally. The represent a literary genre. We can go back in time and see many other examples of this genre.

Some of the Babylonian kings list have people living in excess of 20,000 years. Now, did the Babylonians actually think humans had lived for over 20,000 years? No. There was Kabbalah-like numerology involved whereby the interplay between NAME and NUMBER as expressed by letters that were ALSO numbers expressed more of the story than what just a surface reading could offer.

Do this. Get your Hebrew Bible (an Interlinear) and count out the number of words in each statement in the opening of Genesis 1. You don't even have to read Hebrew to do this. You just have to start counting the words.

Also, did you see what I offered last night about the "NAME" (as you put it) of "Adam?" That wasn't actually his name. It's was he was - "the man." Check it out.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Shame on you, you plagiarist. (Again!)

A very strange set of ethics ... from a "rule of law" sycophant and fundamentalist literalist while still trying to hold the moral superiority card.

[pelathais]

The fact that NONE of the literalists can answer the "Zerubbabel Question" shows us just why parts of the Bible (like the genealogies) can't be taken literally.

AND! - THIS IS KEY! - I'm certainly not the first person to have noticed this. The ancients realized this. These "contradictions" have persisted in our Bibles NOT because everyone was "so stupid."

The ancient scribes understood these things at a deeper level and saw truths being expressed that the Fundamentalists will never grasp.

Why wasn't Matthew 27:9-10 ever "corrected?" Am I the very first guy on the planet to have noticed that "Jeremy the prophet" never spoke those words? Hardly!

It was never "corrected" because it's TRUE, Jason! Now, how can we work that out? You'll have to throw away your "Fundamentalist Literalism" and take the Bible on its own terms to discover that truth.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The fact that NONE of the literalists can answer the "Zerubbabel Question" shows us just why parts of the Bible (like the genealogies) can't be taken literally.

AND! - THIS IS KEY! - I'm certainly not the first person to have noticed this. The ancients realized this. These "contradictions" have persisted in our Bibles NOT because everyone was "so stupid."

The ancient scribes understood these things at a deeper level and saw truths being expressed that the Fundamentalists will never grasp.

Why wasn't Matthew 27:9-10 ever "corrected?" Am I the very first guy on the planet to have noticed that "Jeremy the prophet" never spoke those words? Hardly!

It was never "corrected" because it's TRUE, Jason! Now, how can we work that out? You'll have to throw away your "Fundamentalist Literalism" and take the Bible on its own terms to discover that truth.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by DAII

A very strange set of ethics ... from a "rule of law" sycophant and fundamentalist literalist while still trying to hold the moral superiority card.

I suspect that a lot of coadie's madness and ...uhm ... "moral issues" stem from the fact that he has simply twisted and "wrested" with the Scripture for too long.

Peter warned us that those who try and "wrest" the Scriptures do so to their own "destruction." 2 Peter 3:16.

Peter also warned us about this in 2 Peter 2:1.

[DAII]

[DAII]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I suspect that a lot of coadie's madness and ...uhm ... "moral issues" stem from the fact that he has simply twisted and "wrested" with the Scripture for too long.

Peter warned us that those who try and "wrest" the Scriptures do so to their own "destruction." 2 Peter 3:16.

Peter also warned us about this in 2 Peter 2:1.

If he can't do it theologically, he can at least do it for his Republican Kingdom of god ...