How do you know that your interpretation is the right one?
Now that is a good question. And, of course, one can never be absolutely sure in all situations, but a good rule of thumb is that your interpretation is consistent with the rest of the Bible. Also, one must interpret it in what the author intended.
Actually they're not, and they're not mutually exclusive either. But that is not the topic here. There are plenty of threads on that.
Well, actually they are, but why bring it up knowing that the moderators won’t allow me to respond? Little dishonest of you isn’t it?
How?
Can a book read itself?
Another good question. Let us examine it. First of all, the Bible is no ordinary book. It is actually a collection of 66 books that go together so well, that they read like one book. The authors who wrote the 66 books lived centuries apart in some instances. So when one book corroborates another book, then that is what letting Scripture interpret Scripture means. For instance, Genesis 1 says that “in the beginning God created . ”, and Jesus in Mark 10:6 says:
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
So this is a clear indication that Jesus took Genesis literally.
No, just the parts that deal with creation...
And, of course, the part that deals with Creation is Genesis 1 and not Genesis 2. Not in the sense that when all things were created.
Then why call them G1 and G2, if there's not 2 of them. If they were the same there would be only one.
Uh, G1 and G2 is merely a shortcut of saying chapter 1 and 2 of the same book, Genesis.
Actually, you're totally wrong.
If you actually read them literally then there are contradictions. Its only when you start introducing "interpretations" (which actually makes it no longer literal, by definition) that you can see them as two takes on the same story.
No, it takes interpretation to think that G1 and G2 are two different creation stories. Not the other way around. Once you make that mistake, then the perceived contradictions appear.
That's what I don't get. How can you say its being read literally when you are using an interpretation to extract the meaning.
All things have to be interpreted, but I’m interpreting literally, while others are not.
You only need to interpret something when you cannot read it literally.
You have to make an interpretation to determine whether to read it literally or not.
For example:
quote:
I am hot.
The literal reading is that I am at a relatively high temperature.
An interpretation could be that I am incredibly sexually attractive.
Yes, that is TWO different interpretations. The first being literal, the second being something else.
But you can not say that the interpretation is literal. And FYI, the literal reading is not an iterpretation. The literal reading is only one of temperature not of attractiveness and it requires no interpreting. You just read it as it is written.
Yes, I interpreted it literally.
If we read GEN according to the above definitions of literal and interpretion, the literal reading is one with errors, and you inerrant interpretation is not a literal reading.
Actually, the literal reading clears up all the errors, while the interpretation of both of them being creation stories creates them.
How can you get around this?
You cannot.
When I say that evolution does occur, I mean that species are evolving.
Evolving into what? Something besides what they are?
Decent with modification.
No one denies variation within a kind. This has been observed, yet that is not molecules to man evolution.
Every individual is one negligible transitionary point on a multiply divided continuum from a common ancestor to the plethora of species we see today.
Absolutely no evidence for this. It does require a great deal of faith however.
You cannot deny that evolution occurs as it is a fact observed by scientists.
So when did a scientist observe a frog changing into a turtle? Or a dog into a cat?
When the frequency of an allele changes in a population, that population has experienced evolution.
Again, variation within a kind does not prove evolution. Only small changes within that kind. The kind is still that kind.
The fact that we have seen speciation occur, shows there is no barrier from stoppin micro evolution to become macro evolution.
Define species.
Do deny evolution is to deny reality.
Absolutely not. Evolution is myth. Reality is, that nothing has ever evolved into something else. There may be different kinds of dogs, but they are all dogs.
Now, we can argue 'till the cows come home if the Theory of Evolution accurately describes what we observe, but to say that things don't evolve is most fallacious.
Again, things do change, but this does not prove evolution.
WAG = wild ass guess
Sounds like the theory of evolution.
Do you take the Quran literally? If not, why not?
I take the Koran as a bunch of lies. It takes the stories of the Bible and corrupts them to fit a certain agenda.
To me, the errors are blindingly obvious, and the only way you can NOT see them, is if you make up stuff to get the ends to meet via some interpretation. The actual literal reading does contain errors.
Again, if you were to be put on trial, you would be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The same courtesy should be given the Bible. You and others have made accusations, it is up to you to prove them. Pointing out what seems to be contradictions is not proof. While all I have to do is present a reasonable explanation, which I have done.
Edited by Creationist, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2