Evidence for God from Science

Jac: It's your preorgrative, of course, to respond however you like or don't like, Phil. But it's just as much mine to say that, in my assessment, what you've just written is dishonest. Your language in response to neo's point was that it was a "literalism" that people with theological education wouldn't adhere to.

I didn't say scholars wouldn't necessarily deduce various passages are meant to be literal. I said they wouldn't merely "ASSUME" it - meaning, without qualification. And I was more referring to literal interpretation of the MEANING of the word "day" - as obviously many scholars have conflicting views of what the actual meaning is referring to. AND, one can symbolically have in mind a use for a word they intentionally used, as one would normally understand it, but that its' meaning is symbolic of some other thing - a sequence, or period of time or whatever. But I was also referring to other passages in which there is scholarly disagreement over whether it was meant literally/as normally understood, yet without a deeper or symbolic meaning. So, Jac, ONLY if you can dismiss so many other scholars on some of the things you insist are literal, can I not credibly make my statement.

Also, I qualified that I have not studied the Joshua passage in any depth: Me: "I've not studied the passage with Joshua sufficiently, so I won't comment on that.

And I again referred back to a central topic of Neo's - the "days": Me: "But again, your assertion concerning the days is simply not backed by the views of many, many qualified scholars."

So, Jac, you can continue to strain your one sacred gnats of literalisms that many disagree with, but it won't change the fact that the ULTIMATE meanings may not be as YOU assert. I'm not even sure that Moses knew the greater symbolic meanings of certain Genesis passages. There is much of Scripture that only became clear much later. But the FAR bigger issue that I am speaking to is not merely an argument over ANY one specific passage's meaning - your great passion - but of the great danger of one dismissing whole passages of Scripture because they think it just isn't true. THAT is what I'm arguing against here - not your rabbit trail over what is and what isn't literally meant, and what scholars can and often do conclude that is or isn't. Go argue with whatever scholars you might want over whatever issues of meaning. I would think you would see the far bigger picture here - and that is - and I would hope you agree - Scripture is ALL God-inspired. But Neo's view discombobulates it into a meaningless mess that he has no idea of what is what - although he seems to think he can logically parse that. I'm not a scholar, but I do recognize that there is much scholarly disagreement. And I do understand that Scripture is so intricately intertwined that one cannot just surgically extract what they want without making much of it meaningless. THAT is the far more important issue here!

There is no greater symbolic meaning. That's the whole point, phil. It's bad hermeneutics, and you're dealing with the text in bad faith. And I maintain that your comment to neo was still uncalled for and still dishonest. You wrote it off as a "literalism" and said that no one would assume it who had theological education. You are wrong on that, and as far as I can tell the fact that you won't concede even such a small point speaks volumes of how you approach this entire issue.

edit:

And don't let anyone think I didn't notice Phil's well-poisoning. It's rather sad to see and contributes to the volumes alluded to just above. What's doubly sad is just how typical it is of adherents of a certain view of Genesis 1-11.

I think Philip has clarified what he meant. At this point anything else said regarding what someone thought he meant, is just calling him dishonest.

I don't think we need to go there.

*shrug* If you so interpret, Rick.

Would now be a good time to mention that "day" requires the Sun?

Only if you're willing, in context, to make the added point that this further proves that YECs don't believe yom means a twenty-four hour days since obviously Joshua's long "day" would have been LONGER thatn 24 hours!!! So see, long days are part of the meaning of yom.

Jac3510 wrote:Only if you're willing, in context, to make the added point that this further proves that YECs don't believe yom means a twenty-four hour days since obviously Joshua's long "day" would have been LONGER thatn 24 hours!!! So see, long days are part of the meaning of yom.

See, you yecs can be reasonable!

At bare minimum, retract this. I have a LOT of theological training and I don't see any reading other than "such literalisms."

did any of your training touch upon the symbolism of the sun as Christ, and the moon as the Church?

RickD wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Only if you're willing, in context, to make the added point that this further proves that YECs don't believe yom means a twenty-four hour days since obviously Joshua's long "day" would have been LONGER thatn 24 hours!!! So see, long days are part of the meaning of yom.

See, you yecs can be reasonable!

Don't flatter us. Give a monkey a typewriter and enough time and he'll give you Romeo and Juliet. Give a YEC enough posts and he'll say something that his intellectual and theological betters can regard as reasonable.

bbyrd,

No. There is no such symbolism at all.

bbyrd009 wrote:

At bare minimum, retract this. I have a LOT of theological training and I don't see any reading other than "such literalisms."

did any of your training touch upon the symbolism of the sun as Christ, and the moon as the Church?

Where in the NT does it state that Christ is The Sun or The Church ( which is the Body of Christ), the moon?

Guys,

If you stop feeding the trolls, eventually they'll go somewhere else to be fed.

But I don't want to be put on permignore, Rick.

Jac3510 wrote:But I don't want to be put on permignore, Rick.

Then continue feeding. But don't come crying to me, when Gizmo gets out of control because you thought it cute to feed him after midnight.

And upon what would you have me feed that we might realize this Gizmo?

Jac3510 wrote:And upon what would you have me feed that we might realize this Gizmo?

Logic and common sense. That's all it takes. You'll see. Remember, I warned you.

Feed common sense in one end, and get a load of gibberish out the other end.