mike the wiz writes:
1. We don't. We take the bible contextually. Which basically means we accept pretty much by large percentage, all of the parts as, "literal" that you do, such as people, events, places. In Genesis the context is historical narrative, which is common knowledge.
Knowledge of the real world is gained by actually studying that world, not a religious book.
2. The reason evolutionists want to spread the propaganda that we take it too literally is to make out we are just one small group out of many groups that has their own interpretation of the bible which we take too literally.
More generally, evolutionists think creationists attach too much importance to a book and too little to the real world.
3. You as evolutionists and even atheists, also take Genesis to be literal, historical narrative.
Any written account could be in some measure partly accurate, partly erroneous, and partly indeterminate. That includes Genesis.
I spoke to an atheist and he accepted the people, events, places. He accepted Joseph was taken into slavery, that the people escaped eventually, he accepted that Abraham really went out into desolate places and lived in tents. Pretty much we went through the book and agreed on all literal parts.
Are you imagining that this atheist is somehow representative of atheists in general? Wouldn't you expect atheists to embody a wide variety of opinion?
BUT, he only didn't accept that two particular parts of Genesis were literal. The first chapters of Genesis and the flood.
Those do seem like significantly problematic sections.
Question; is it a coincidence that these are the only two parts of Genesis that would rule out an evolutionary pre-history?
Is it coincidence that these portions of Genesis are most in conflict with real-world evidence?
Conclusion; there was no change in the text where he did not accept these as literal historical, narrative. The style of writing and the context was the same; that of a news reported reporting an event.
Again, so you think this particular atheist's opinions are representative of atheism in general? Don't you think it's possible that alternative perspectives on the reality of Joseph and Abraham are common among atheists?
It is clear that everyone is a bible literalist,...
Really. Everyone's a Biblical literalist. It greatly surprises me to discover that I'm a Biblical literalist. Probably surprises Islamists, Hindus and Buddhists, too.
...it's just that creationists take the correct context of the bible consistently whereas evolutionists special plead two parts that don't allow for evolution and millions of years of fake evolutionary history.
I don't think evolutionists reference the Bible at all.
Conclusion; Do you enjoy being LIARS when you LIE about us by saying we take the bible literally when 1. we don't, we take it contextually, and 2. We take it consistently, and don't treat Genesis any differently, but just accept the same literal narrative as the rest of the book.
You just said "everyone is a bible literalist," and now you're saying the opposite, that creationists are Bible contextualists, followed by something vague and contradictory, that you "accept the same literal narrative as the rest of the book," whatever that means.
YOUR PROPAGANDA IS BUSTED.
Aw, shucks.
The cherry on the cake is this; if ours was just another interpretation then we would have to do more than just quote the bible. You see when an evolutionist or a racist or a universalist reasons their doctrines, they have to explain their doctrine because they are reading things into the bible which are not stated. Nothing can be unequivocally stated from those viewpoints that would support them. But when a creationist tells his viewpoint, he doesn't need to reason anything into the bible or explain anything, for all I have to do is quote what the bible says, meaning the creationist position IS THE BIBLICAL and CORRECT position.
Really? What about all the words not from the Bible written by CRS, ICR and AIG, among others? And you, too. You've written many words here but not quoted the Bible once.
Think about it. You may have to reason racism in there by trying to make out the mark of Cain is something to do with skin colour but you couldn't quote the bible saying black men are worth less than white men.
If this is still about atheism, I think very few atheists would argue racism based on the mark of Cain.
But when it comes to animal kinds, all I have to do to prove creationism is simply quote what it says, that God made them according to kind. Or when it comes to replication what it says about it's seed being within itself such as trees or whatever. Or if I want to quote where God says He made mankind in His image I don't have to reason it out, I just quote it.
It remains true that showing things likely true about the real world requires study of that world, not quoting from a religious book.
In other words the creationist position is simply the biblical position. It's not something I have to invent, creation is just another miracle in the bible I accept consistently. I don't have to enforce it as some interpretation like with the false concepts such as theistic evolution, I just have to quote the bible PROVING my position is the biblical position.
The Bible has been used to "prove" many positions.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
(1)