Hoops wrote: Oh, Ceeboo, my friend. You're such a great guy, but don't you know that Dr. McMurtry is an idiot?
Indeed, a complete idiot :)
by the way, thanks for the link. had not heard of him before.
You are most welcome.
Of the many, many "young earth" sites that I have checked out over the years, I found this one to be the most interesting/informative. (Spent about 20-25 hours reading his material/videos/debates)
Hoops wrote: And, for what it's worth, there is no getting around a "hyperliteral" reading of Genesis. Either it's true and means what it says, or it isn't.
Well, there is no getting around it if you're Mormon, since so many Mormon scriptures depend on that hyper literal viewpoint. You can get around it as a Christian or a Jew, though.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Hoops wrote:Genesis is particularly difficult to take metaphorically. For example: Gen 1:3. The first day.
But, did light magically appear because God said it, or did God say something and workers went and made it happen? The literalness would be to take it that when God said the words light appeared, as if there never was light before, but it need not be taken that way, as I see it.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Hoops wrote:It seems that a logical practice would be to take the Bible literally whenever possible, when reconciling it with what else the Bible tells us. Genesis is particularly difficult to take metaphorically. For example: Gen 1:3. The first day.
Another logical practice would be to take the Bible metaphorically in every instance. This results in interpretation of the myth that retains the spiritual value. See Unity School of Christianity to examples.
The person who is certain and who claims divine warrant for his certainty belongs now to the infancy of our species. Christopher Hitchens
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. Frater
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Another logical practice would be to take the Bible metaphorically in every instance.
That is my preferred method. Makes WAY more sense.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
Well, there is no getting around it if you're Mormon
That's an interesting comment. It's my understanding that Mormon thought/doctrine is perfectly setup to take Genesis either way. The assertion that God is subject to natural law, as one example.
since so many Mormon scriptures depend on that hyper literal viewpoint. You can get around it as a Christian or a Jew, though.
My point is that one may try, but unsuccessfully. Which is why Genesis is rarely taught in Christian churches, to our discredit.
But, did light magically appear because God said it, or did God say something and workers went and made it happen? The literalness would be to take it that when God said the words light appeared, as if there never was light before, but it need not be taken that way, as I see it.
The text says He spoke it into existence. There is no other way to take that.
Another logical practice would be to take the Bible metaphorically in every instance. This results in interpretation of the myth that retains the spiritual value. See Unity School of Christianity to examples.
No, that is not a reasonable way to address the text. That renders the text as a whole, and any parsing you may do, virtually meaningless.