Christian Evolutionists: How does that work? A Q&A session

It's hard to believe a word in this day and age means what it was originally intended. Now days they interchange words to mean what they want not what they are. Here is what I have from the Cambridge advanced learners Dictionary.
Theory- a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas which are suggested to explain fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation.
nowhere does it say it is a fact. It says it is a statement which SUGGESTS to explain...
You may find in other dictionary's a more liberal useage. So your point on people interpreting things differently is noted. When the word is twisted to give a more favorable meaning to something morally questionable in this day and age than I don't give it's usage much credance. -z

But you accept that how scientists use a term is different to how the man on the street uses the term (you realise that a scientific dic would give you a different explaination to that of a standard dic?). The other problem you have is the source you have used is the intended to teach people english - it's therefore gives rather simplistic defs.I think that the next aspect we need to explore is the use of the word "fact".In general usage - this means "this is true".In science usage it's slightly more complex but means "what we can observe on a repeatable basis". Notice there is no value judgement in this - it is just a statement.So in scientific terms something can be fact and theory.Are you still with me?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-02-2004 07:41 AM

quote:

---

I don't see any change here. It is not saying that God made man then planted a garden then put man there

---

That is EXACTLY what it IS saying. Your interpetation of the importance of the semicolon is amusing but nowhere clear to right. The semicolon does not indicate that the order of the text does not ofllow the chronological order as you claim. And the explicit use of "then" at the start of 2:& DOES indicate a strict chronological sequence.Moreover skipping to a future event doesn't make much sense - not when even the NIV fails to use the future tense or give any indication at all that it IS a future event. And please don't waste our time with speculations over Moses' motivations when there is no real evidence that Moses wrote a word of Genesis.

Hi Z, I was wondering how you learned to discern which parts of a text are intended literally and which figuratively.

quote:

---

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

---

This seems to explitly say that man was formed in the past tense. It could have said "whom he would form" or "whom he was forming", but it didn't. It seems a bit of a stretch to read something other than past tense into it.This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 11-02-2004 10:07 AM

Tusko - When you find out how to discern which parts of the bible are figurative and which ones are literal, would you let me know?
Thanks

Would the way to discern be the same for everyone? I don't think so

if it means a prior event, why does it use the word 'then'?if you insist on being a literalist, take it literally.

No. Rather, it is you who are wrong about God. Why do you think I would describe your lies as "good"?

Originally intended by whom?You've got it quite backwards, I'm afraid. The word "theory" was invented by scientists to describe explanitory models; it was laypeople like yourself that twisted the meaning into something like "guess.""Explanitory model" is the original meaning of the word "theory." Is it so hard to believe that you might be wrong about what a word means? Especially with two dictionaries telling you that you are? Nowhere did we say that, either. But if you'll look, it says that it does explain facts, which is what we've been telling you all along. Theories are made of facts. They aren't themselves facts. Just like a house is made of bricks, but a house is not a brick. You don't understand. "Explanitory model" is the original meaning. You're the one twisting the definition.

Sure thing, I'll get back to you when I've got it sorted out. I'm guessing you need special glasses or something.

Seriously though, I'd be really interested to see Z's justification for his assertion that he knows for sure that this bit or that bit isn't intended literally. I suspect that I wouldn't be very convinced by his argument, in the same way that I'm not convinced when people say "oh well, that stuff about not wearing different cloths at the same time is plain obsolete, but hating gays is still a cornerstone of God's plan". It seems like the rules are being being applied or ignored in an ad hoc fashion.Some people need to believe an unambiguous truth is housed in a text, so it is in their interests to deny that it can be ambiguous (same deal with people who put stock in the Koran, or any holy text). In fact, wider than that, they seem to deny that language is ambiguous at all. But to me this seems patently untrue.I can't remember much about it now, but I think he could really do with a crash course in some Wolfgang Iser and reader reception theory. You know, all that death of the author stylee.

Until Zach reveals his method, we are left to guess. I imagine that if we could solve this issue, we could collectively end all the wars based on religious differences.

Just because Moses didn't put his signature down doesn't mean he didn't author it. Speculation? I'm going by what almost every scholar plus all of the Judaic history says. You can ask any Jewish person who the author of the Pentateuch was and they would say Moses. Argue with them they know it better than you do. What do you base your statements on?

NO. It doesn't "explain facts". It SUGGESTS explanations. Cambridge dictionary. SUGGESTS.