THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION; LITERAL?

You are so correct, Sooner. In fact, a literal interpretation of Genesis was not even considered until a little over 100 years ago. For the first 1900 years of Christianity (and thousands of years of Judaism before that), everyone assumed it was figurative. Not sure why all of a sudden these so-called conservatives want to ignore all that and go with their liberal, literal interpretation, but there it is.

As for me and my house, we shall worship the Lord.

I think he was just giving an example of something that when read clearly is difficult to interpret the meaning of. For example: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." Proverbs 23: 13-14
It is very difficult to take things like this literally or to derive a meaning from it.

Not that wikipedia is a good source, but it's generally biased against Christianity, and it even disagrees that YEC is only 100 years old as an idea.



Let's try to avoid emotionalism. If often causes us to say things that just aren't so.

I take it you no longer agree with your previous statement?




Now, Proceed with not listening to anyone but yourself.

1) Wow, we agree that wikipedia is not necessarily a reliable source. Mark this date in the calendar
2) What is your evidence for saying that Wikipedia is "generally biased against Christianity"? I have not found that to be particularly the case.
3) Explain how the concept of YEC being around for thousands of years disproves my assertion that an insistence on a literal interpretation of Scripture has only been around for 100 years. (Note: believing that Genesis 1 is literal (as opposed to Genesis 2, which contradicts Genesis 1) is not the same as an insistence on a literal interpretation of Scripture. In fact, the belief that the world is only about 6,000 years old does not require a literal interpretation of Scripture. Even today, a handful of Jews believe in a young earth without believing that Genesis 1 was ever intended to be taken literally.

If you are referring to me, I am not emotional about this (yet). I'm sorry if anything I said gave you the idea that I was, for it is not the case. If you can indicate something I've said that seems "emotional" to you rather than stating facts along with my own personal beliefs, please bring it to my attention so that I am aware of tone when I write.

{snip picture of statement in which I said no one person can judge another person's faith except for God}

Please point out where you think I questioned anyone else's faith. To my knowledge, I have NEVER said that anyone who disagrees with me regarding anything is not a Christian. I may state that they are "no more Christian than myself."
Now, if you believe me to be non-Christian, due to my faith in a God who uses parables, then yes, someone who was "no more Christian than myself" would have to be, by your narrow definition, non-Christian. But that is your error in judgment, not mine, and I will not apologize for you, or anyone else, thinking that I'm not Christian.

If someone says they are a Christian, as far as I am concerned, they are a Christian, whether I agree with them or not. I may think they're dead wrong on their interpretation of Scripture, on their understanding of justification by faith through grace, on their acceptance or denial of tradition, reason, and experience in interpreting Scripture, or on any other tenet or doctrine. But that doesn't mean that I don't think they are Christian.

Being Christian doesn't mean you're always right, just that you're saved. I know plenty of people, and I suspect you do, too, who are dead wrong about a lot of things, and are still saved.

If you feel that I have ever implied that I doubt someone else's faith in Christ, I most humbly apologize, both to the person or persons I accused, and to our great and awesome God, and beg forgiveness for such a horrific sin. I certainly have NEVER intended to imply such, but if someone has misunderstood my words to make it seem that way, then I am truly and utterly sorry. Though I cannot control how another person may understand what I say, I should take responsibility for how I phrase things, and I ask my sisters and brothers in the faith to point out to me if something I say seems accusatory in any way of denying another person's faith.

No, thanks. I much prefer to dialogue with other people rather than stick my fingers in my ears. I will continue to dialogue, and will not change my actions as you have requested.

If you want to ignore what others say, however, you are welcome. A heads-up would be appreciated, however, so I know that you're ignoring me. Won't hurt my feelings one bit, I'll just know you're not interested in further discussion.

God bless.

EDIT: Forgot about this in my reply.

Just a tiny tid bit for you to nibble on.
So then, you miscommunicated? As far as scripture and interpretation, literal or not, is a matter of Hermeneutics and proper Exegesis.



If you're interested.
Two Creation Accounts? <-- click



You do so by implication, thus my reason for quoting it in my previous post.

As if someone who says we should take Genesis to be historical narrative, doesn't worship the way, the truth, and the life.


Have I said that you are not?

Does scripture give any indication as to how one might be able to tell if another is Christian or not?






It's probably a good thing Christ was a bit stubborn with the devil on that mountain top.

Also, I would like to add..

I see. Because some entries indicate that belief is superstitious, ergo the entire website is anti-Christian.

At least I'm glad it's not just me to which you apply your questionable logic.

Apparently. I'm sorry for the confusion, and in that context, yes, I can see where the mis-communication happened. My bad. Let me know if you need further clarification to understand my point.

Agreed. You and I disagree on what "proper Exegesis" is.

Please indicate where I said this. If I did not, please indicate where I implied it. Just saying I implied something does not help me avoid such mistakes in the future. Unless you mean that you were wrong, simply misread something, and the onus is not on me to clarify.

Not as far as I have seen so far in this or other threads. I was simply pointing out that the only way someone could say I have implied others are not Christian is if they say I am not. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, then they're not your shoes.

It gives indication as to what we should avoid. Depending on the translation you use, it doesn't say that a person is not a Christian, just that you should avoid those with "rotten fruit." And it isn't really specific about what those fruits are, or how to measure their ripeness.

I did not say it was anti-Christian. It would require much more blatancy for that. I also said that the artical is a TINY TID BIT. Something to start you off, so that you might be open to the idea that wikipedia could possible somewhere within it's entirety have something that might possibly contain an itty bitty teeny tiny miniscule amount of a somewhat biased approach toward Christianity in the negative.

Also, care to explain to us what the Tinkerbell effect is? (central to the issue)

:/

Where have I done so?

I guess it depends on which point we are discussing(you made two seperate claims). I am not, however, interested in this particular battle. I prefer to fight those that have the potential of a favorable outcome.



Exegesis is ultimately subject to Hermeneutics. This I suspect is where the debate would rage. (Hermeneutics attemps to asnwer the question: What type of writing is this? Poetry, historical narrative, prophecy,etc?)

Is Genesis Poetry or Historic Narrative <--- introduction
Apologetics Press - Genesis 1 thru 11?Mythical or Historical? <--- another

EDIT:
Also, why should I accept that the accounts of the resurrection are to be taken literal? Afteralll, this contradicts the prevailing scientific naturalism.

I've tried two times, the first time I was asking to clarify what you were saying. (didn't to to claim that which wasn't so)
You can see that from the below picture.




My second time...




Now, I shall try a third time.(maybe this time will be a charm )

PLEASE VIEW THE BELOW QUOTATION, AND REFER TO IT'S ORIGINAL CONTEXT.
PLEASE VIEW THE ABOVE QUOTATION, AND REFER TO IT'S ORIGINAL CONTEXT.


Why thank you for this observation.

False dichotomy is false. Pointing out someone implies something does not neccesitate that the pointer-outer-er is claiming the implier is subject to their own implication.

To explain that; my pointing out that one of your statements atleast seemingly implies that those who take scriptural account of creation to be historical narrative rather than poetry/metaphor/allegory, does not mean, nor neccesitate that I in return question your salvation. Make sense?

Size 13 Wide please



Does scripture give any indication as to what makes a person Christian? (is there anything that seperates the sheep, goats, wolves, etc?)

I believe in a literal 6 days also. I am glad you said what you did about evolution (I'm not trying to hijack this thread, honestly!) because I have been trying to strengthen my faith by reading everything I can understand and digest mentally about the pros and cons of evolution and creation. From what I've read so far, evolution is a religion. My hat is off to evolutionists because they have to have more faith than creationists...because there is less evidence for their religion!

Comment to jimmydiggs: I did read your response, and appreciate your comments. You appear to have become too emotional on this topic, so I will simply drop it. If you would like to continue the discussion later, when you have calmed down, I am open to that.