(April 5, 2017 at 12:19 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:(April 5, 2017 at 12:09 pm)SteveII Wrote: No, that is not what I said, implied, or meant.
What I said (and meant) was exactly what I wrote.
You said that a whole chapter of the first book of the bible can be safely disregarded. [1] This is despite the fact that at many places in both the ot and nt it is stated that the bible has to be taken as inerrant in full.[2]
Either you're right or your holy book, the whole foundation of your religion, is right. There is no middle ground. [3]
1. How in the world do you jump to a Christian does not need to have "a specific view on Genesis 1" to "safely disregarded"?
2. Where? Also, in the context of any verse you might dig up, what constituted "the Bible"?
3. You don't understand what you are talking about. You imagine some sort of dilemma that you can speak of in some sort of broad strokes. What does the doctrine of inerrancy actually mean (and where does it come from)? Are there different view/levels? Applied to which of the 66 books? Which translation(s) in which language? Is it the same as biblical literalism? Is it necessary to believe the doctrine to be a Christian?
