(September 9, 2019 at 9:50 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Because all interpretation of language, whether in the Bible, or in real life, in novels, book, etc... require an assumption of intent. What it is that Ego is trying to communicate to me above. If the author of Genesis had a vision from God, I would expect him to have indicated that, because I don't see any reason why he wouldn't. Why would that be omitted? The fact that this omission seems quite incomprehensible to me, is why I hold the assumption that I do.
But why assume he would include it? Maybe he thought you'd be smart enough to simply take the text as a literal account of creation. What makes your version more reasonable than mine?
(September 9, 2019 at 9:50 pm)Acrobat Wrote: What bigger metaphor? Some unknown bigger metaphor?
Who knows? It could be one none of us are even aware of? Maybe the original meaning of the text was lost long, long ago? My point is, how do you know?
(September 9, 2019 at 9:50 pm)Acrobat Wrote: I don't deal with unknown interpretations. Just like I don't withhold belief in the theory of evolution, because of the possibility of some unknown theory that might one day replace it, and prove it false.
Well, you are though. You're constantly coming up with your own interpretations of things every time you read something. That interpretation was unknown to you until you developed it. So the question is, how did you develop the interpretation and what makes you think that interpretation is valid versus someone else's?
(September 9, 2019 at 9:50 pm)Acrobat Wrote: I deal with known, or given interpretations, and see which one fits that information better.
If in you only want to discuss interpretations you've already developed, then sure. But even then, how are you deciding which interpretation fits the information better?
If you're frightened of dying, and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the Earth.
