ps418

Oh, paleeeze! As long as there are believers around making ridiculous statements like this, the laughter will never cease. Your 'wise man' seems like a deluded coward to me.

Nonsense.

'Biblical scholarship' overwhelmingly supports the 6-solar-day creation interpretation of Genesis. If you disagree with the 6-solar-day creation interpretation of Genesis, then you do so only to reconcile your creationism with naturalistic science, not because there is genuine ambiguity in the text. However, please feel free to post links to the "biblical scholarship" which you think undermine the 6-solar-day creation interpretation of Genesis.

Vanderzyden

Interesting.

So perhaps you can tell me how I should interpret you vague response. Is it:

-- a nervous giggle because you've not really thought this through?
-- non-chalance concerning your impending death (it won't be long now)
-- that you somehow have uniquely privileged information so that you know with absolute certainty that you will cease to exist when you die?

Let's take this <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000574" target="_blank">elsewhere</a>.

Vanderzyden

Note: Yes, your reading of scripture is way off. None of the passages you cite are inconsistent with any modern knowledge. The difficulty, I think, is that you read it through a "Santa Claus" filter. But that is a topic for another time, another forum

lpetrich

I'm strongly tempted to laugh at that comment, because laughing is not a very complicated sound to produce, and it does not have nearly as much variety as full-scale human language. The number of different laughs one makes is much smaller than the number of different words -- and different sentences. This accounts for the well-known fact that laughter provides few clues on what the laugher had found funny.

Or else that "goddidit" is true only in some special theological sense or whatever; I've never understood the "special kind of truth" apologetic that seems to be common among non-fundies.

The same can be said about any other "goddidit" explanation -- an omnipotent being can do anything.

For what?

VZ, please state your disagreements with Young Earth Creationism. Where do you think that it is in error?

However, the translation "day" is the usual meaning of the word used in the text. But if you want to argue that those were very special "days"...

VZ, how does one tell the difference between the various kinds of content in the Bible? Can one be sure that that interpretation technique does not reduce to something like "it's literal if I like it, allegorical if I don't"? I ask that because interpretation techniques often seem to reduce to that.

And why is interpreting the Bible so much trouble? Why doesn't it have chapter headings and language guides and the like so that nobody will misinterpret any of it?

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

ps418

Yes, its a good idea to just go ahead and declare victory, without discussing a single verse. This will be much easier for you than earning it.

However, I am curious as to which other scriptures we are "way off" on. In addition to the 6-days bit I've requested information on, I'd like to know whether there was a global flood 4500 years ago that killed every breathing thing outside Noah's ark and covered the highest mountains?

Or does an &lt;cough, cough&gt; 'careful reading' of the Genesis account support a local flood, that didnt really cover any mountains, and only killed some of the animals outside the ark?

And what about the sequence of creation, e.g. land plants before marine organisms? What about Adam being created from earth, and Eve from a rib? And talking donkies? Is any of this "inconsistent with any modern knowledge"? Or are we just reading Genesis through the Santa Claus filter again? How do we know when to adulterate our acceptance of God's word based on naturalistic science, and when not to?

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

scigirl

I am closing this thread for several reasons:

1. Several people requested it be moved
2. It's way off topic
and 3. I consider this a very subtle death threat and I don't see this thread getting any better or more productive now:

Please start new threads in the appropriate forums if you wish to discuss these topics further.

Thanks,

scigirl

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>