But the rest of you can join in, makes it all the better Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyways, ive seen lately, there's really no getting to you scientifically... so lets talk biblically... lets start with Genesis, give me yoyur explanation, and we can move on, if anyone wants to add stuff, go right ahead! If you wanna answer, go right ahead! After all ... its a public forum Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Genesis 1: 26-31 hen God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. According to this, God created Man on the sixth day of Creation, male and female. Man refers to Human, not Male. So, Male and Female were created together, as Man was created, Male and Female were created, at the same time. Genesis 2: 5-7 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [a] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [c] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [d] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. According to this, Man was created first, only a male, and after him the plants and animals were created... very, very different than what the first creation story tells us... since that tells us plants, animals, and then humans. Can someone PLEASE explain this to me???
First I'd like to establish whether Lawdog sees Genesis as literal or symbolic since each perspective sigificantly changes how the debate would proceed. I'd consider a literal view as exceedingly problematic to justify. Also - providing Lawdog agrees to participate it would be appropriate that we recognize his fundamentalist position as a given and argue the issues that that presents in a constructive manner, even though you may have no respect for the position.
Why would He consider Genesis as symbolic if he believes the Synoptics (and, if I may presume, the New Testament) to be literal?
The bible includes many approaches, both symbolic and literal. It doesn't follow that if one part is intended as literal then all must be considered literal.
Valid, valid point Cris, and I hope he does participate, for it may convert us (lure Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )
Because Lawdog's a catholic, and Catholicism's official stance is that the OT is mostly symbolic and exaggerrated to illustrate a point, while the NT is mostly the exact occurrence of events. Weird mix.
That is an incorrect approach because Jesus, even as a child, (apparently) knew and taught from the OT. Secondly, much of the Pauline theology builds on the OT. Did I mention that the writers believed that Jesus' divinity was assured by the 'prophecies' in the OT? I am not sure then how one can accept some of the teachings when the writers CLEARLY did not see the Scriptures as some sort of division between 'Old' and 'New' Testament, but rather as ONE message from God. It's like picking and choosing what to believe, ya know?
SS, Not sure of your issue here. The Jesus stories also have him give analogies and parables to illustrate a point. The OT uses variations of this and symbologies to illustrate concepts. I thought this was generally accepted and well known.
This thread offers an interesting perspective for debate. The absence of Lawdog thus far suggests it is not a battleground on which he feels he can win. Provita, have you contacted him by pm to alert him about the thread and the wish to engage?
Yep, so far no response, but i dont think he has seen it yet, I think he signed off (or w/e u want to call it) before i sent it.
Right. I only just noticed how recent your opening post was. For some reason I thought it was a couple of days old. Can you, or any one esle, comment on the extent to which the apparent ambiguities you pointed out are a result of translation differences? That is an angle that I think should be eliminated, or dealt with, at the outset.
Both valuable points, and a necessity when having a debate because of the absolute vastness of differing religious beliefs. Is the bible the completely literal infallible word of god? Which version? Etc
Exactly. I've read somewhat into this, and supposedly a somewhat common literalist's response would say that the Adam and Eve story takes place on the 6th day, that it is a more specific story of the 6th Day of creation. But if you look closely at a few online bibles, and your bible, for the most part, the Bible states that Adam and Eve were created, and then the plants. Contrary to the 6-Day Creation Story. Also, since Lawdog is Catholic, lets examine the Catholic-preferred Bible, which is the New American Bible (or the New Jerusalem Bible, but i have failed to yet see those here... i guess they are in Jerusalem Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) Sure, i cannot say that the Bible is'nt the infallible word of god/God, but dont you think after centuries of translating, passing on handwritten copies (and obviously, unless you are God too, making a typo, which, in Greek or most other languages, makes the word completely different), along with the fact that a word can mean so many different things, plus some languages dont have this word and all that etc. etc. ... I cannot see how we know this is what "God" wants us to see. You could say "He guided the men to make those mistakes so that we could hear the word He wanted us to hear" sure... but if you go there.... which version, as SnakeLord asked... is THE VERSION ?
Strange perhaps, but I actually have one here with me right now Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Cant really use it much though because the dog kinda ate half of it. Poor blighter's now doomed to an eternity of burning. I keep telling him to repent before it's too late, but he just tilts his head in confusion and then shits on the carpet. What can you do heh?
Bible versions are irrelevant the message is the same, it's like football eveyone understands it but not everyone accepts it. This is more relevant to the Koran which is only holy apparently in its original language. Hey by the way SnakeLord Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
you're confusing accuracy with holiness; the Quran is only considered accurate in its original language; since Arabic has many fine shades of meaning with no counterparts in many languages.
