hahaha3hahaha wrote: BigBallinStalin wrote: puppydog85 wrote: BigBallinStalin wrote: hahaha3hahaha wrote:
"What about the Genesis story?" Well, it's meant to be taken figuratively--not literally.
What gives you that impression? I'm interested to here your theory on why creation is figurative and not literal.
I'm not here to defend that argument; I'm simply explaining how Christians and particular sects aribtrarily behave by flipping between the literal and the figurative. It's a fact that it occurs, and that's the relevant point here. So,...
Do you take everything in the Bible literally?
Did God state that everything in the Bible must be taken literally?
And, how old is the Earth?
It's actually not all that hard to find out what should be taken literally. The parts that are historical are meant to be literal. The poetic stuff is clearly not. The prophetic books have their own set of rules but by and large are not literal.
You want it laid out book by book?
People make it hard on themselves. And really they should know better, the Bible says pretty clearly that if you want to believe it you have to give up other forms of authority. But most people have trouble doing that and attempt to force a book into an interpretation that it clearly says otherwise.
Since there's no part in the Bible which states you must take everything literally, then it's up to the reader to separate the literal from the figurative. You chose your standard, and other people will choose their standards. Both sides can use the exact reasoning of your last paragraph and arrive at different conclusions. Given this dilemma, how do we know your standard is correct while the standards of others are incorrect?
RE: the question on the age of the Earth. If one takes the Genesis story literally--as well other parts of the Bible literally (in order to calculate some date), then wouldn't one confine oneself to an age of the Earth which can be falsified? I believe so, which in turn opens the Bible to error in this aspect---if taken literally. How does one overcome this problem?
Whilst some aspects to the Bible may be confusing as to whether they're to be interpreted literally or figuratively, most of it is clean cut, no debate necessary.
For example, when God commands us not to steal, it's pretty obvious that it's a command to literally, not steal. No degree in theology required.
You still have not given any basis regarding why you believe creation was figurative and not meant to be taken literally. This is an open discussion, don't be shy.
Your response doesn't resolve the dilemma. Sure, "don't steal", that makes sense, but saying "it's obvious" when in many cases, it isn't, fails to demonstrate that your standard (whatever it is) is correct while all others are incorrect.
Given this dilemma, how do we know your standard is correct while the standards of others are incorrect?
(We actually can't know, yet somehow you do because you're special? Or... you have access to Godlike truth? Or you don't realize the limits of your stance?)
I already addressed your tangent about the Genesis story. You're not interested in addressing the fundamental problems of your stance (which is disappointing).