(October 26, 2015 at 1:32 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Literalism was the traditional interpretation at one time. You're arguing a game of numbers. Your interpretation is only better than another in terms of the number of people who agree to the base assumptions you've made, as I originally said, and as is clearly pointed out in your latest reply to me.If it is germane to question being asked, the strength of an opinion takes into account the base assumptions. Otherwise a doctrine taken from Sacred Scripture that is based on a comparison of relevant passages across multiple books is stronger than one based on a single ambiguous quote. Any reasonable person can see that. That is not to say that there at some texts are more difficult to reconcile or just plain obscure. Those do exist, like Matthew 17:12. At the same time, some doctrines, like a final judgment, are made crystal clear in multiple verses (Rev. 20:12-13, Heb. 9:27, 2 Cor. 5:10, 1 Peter 4:5, Rom. 2:16, Dan 12:2, Matt 25:46, 2 Peter 3:7, Matt 16:27, Psalm 98:9, Isaiah 16:5, etc. )
(October 26, 2015 at 1:32 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: By the way, I'm disappointed in your answer to my questions as well. It's a dodge.Whether the flood story in Genesis 6-9 describes a historical global flood, a local event turned legend, or pure fiction does not concern me. I’m not looking for a lesson in history or geology; but rather the meaning(s) the writer(s) attached to that and other narratives. I don’t need a sacred text to justify belief in God. The general revelation of Nature of which Paul writes (Romans 1:20) has been adequately demonstrated since the time of Thomas Aquinas and sufficiently defended against the misconceptions of modern skeptics. All I ask from special revelation is that it is consistent with spiritual truths that have already been rationally demonstrated and that it rewards deep reading.
