The Earth is 6000 years old?

[Jac3510]

Of course not, Paul. Just like there are many an atheist who are convinced that objective morality can exist without God, hipsters that there is no evidence for Jesus' existence, and conspiracy theorists who think that the U.S. is hiding aliens in Area 51. You can claim "MY INTERPRETATION" all you want. The difference in me and you is that I am right and you are wrong. I've provided premises and conclusions. You've just provided assertions. I am being rational and following arguments to their logical conclusions. You are not. I am reaching my conclusions based on what the evidence demands. You are assuming conclusions based on your preference.

But, then again, so do the foolish atheists, hipsters, and conspiracy theorists. Let it never be thought for one moment that I think I can decide what your position is for you, or worse yet, what you think your position's worth is. On the other hand, I am perfectly capable of telling you that your estimation of your position is wrong and that it is, in fact, utterly worthless. You can complain, of course, but you'll be in the same boat as the person who insists his $1 bill is really wort $1,000,000.

[PaulSacramento]

Of course not, Paul. Just like there are many an atheist who are convinced that objective morality can exist without God, hipsters that there is no evidence for Jesus' existence, and conspiracy theorists who think that the U.S. is hiding aliens in Area 51. You can claim "MY INTERPRETATION" all you want. The difference in me and you is that I am right and you are wrong. I've provided premises and conclusions. You've just provided assertions. I am being rational and following arguments to their logical conclusions. You are not. I am reaching my conclusions based on what the evidence demands. You are assuming conclusions based on your preference.

But, then again, so do the foolish atheists, hipsters, and conspiracy theorists. Let it never be thought for one moment that I think I can decide what your position is for you, or worse yet, what you think your position's worth is. On the other hand, I am perfectly capable of telling you that your estimation of your position is wrong and that it is, in fact, utterly worthless. You can complain, of course, but you'll be in the same boat as the person who insists his $1 bill is really wort $1,000,000.

That you don't see what you are saying speaks volume Jac.
Lets just leave it at that.

[Jac3510]

"There is no such thing as truth."

Does the one who say that actually say anything to be heard? I doubt it, which is why I'm not surprised that you can't hear how what you're saying is nothing at all. *shrug*

[Philip]

and especially not at the textual level (and that's where the real debate has to be had). For the criteria for distinction must be found there and only there. Anything less is eisogesis, because it means that the necessary information to see the truth of the text was not available to the audience to whom it was written; and that would be to say that the audience to whom it was written was not able to see it's truth, which means the text was not revelatory to them.

You can call that presumptuous, I suppose. You can call it an opinion. I call it the necessary and inescapable conclusion and the only rational position to hold in light of the evidence.

I hope no one is inferring that there is not figurative language in Scripture. And if one wants to take the approach that concerning passages that aren't specific or that CAN be read and interpreted in different ways, then I'd say they are being more honest - or at least objective. But as for whether entire explanatory passages are merely allegorical and not historical, I think that is a dangerous path to what Jac mentions, that, if totally untrue in any way, OR if merely allegorical with not actual basis in fact and history, THEN one has jumped on the slippery slope. A Bible filled with mere allegorical tales, ones in which they could be interpreted in many ways, none of them certain - or just guesswork - means they are essentially worthless to us as being revealed truth. Because God has told us His word IS true, and so if something in Scripture has NO basis in fact, then God could not have possibly originated or inspired it. That said, some portions of Scripture can well be true but the HOW and WHY that they are true, and the actual details involved, may not be things we have an accurate take on.

Concerning the literal meanings in Genesis 1-3, check this link out: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =9&t=39515