To Christians who aren't creationists

[The Grand Nudger]

Let me remind you that God limited the lifespan of man twice, so this is no surprise. The evidence for long lifespans can be found but again, if one takes the evidence from the quoted words and tries to apply it to a time where that limitation was not in effect, then they would just end up with the wrong information and conclusion.

you need to find a body from the pre-flood world and test it then use that evidence before drawing any conclusions.

Evidence?

[Neo-Scholastic]

There is NO symbolic import to Genesis 1 & 2. Just because symbolism may be used in other parts of the Bible doesn't mean Genesis contains any.

You're avoiding the question by asserting that Gen is literal while accepting other parts as symbolic. Please explain how you learned that distinction and why you think Gen in particular is a materialist explanation of physical event.

[The Grand Nudger]

Please explain Chad, why you insist that the bible is symbolic except for the god bit? How did you learn that distinction and why do you think that "god", in particular, is not part of the symbolism?

(Pro-tip, you're asking a cherry-picker why they don't cherry-pick the same way you do.... The answer is embedded in the question.)

[Neo-Scholastic]

Please explain Chad, why you insist that the bible is symbolic except for the god bit?

Biblical interpretation is as much an art as a science. I pose the question to DT because I am open to learning something new, something I may not have considered before.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, no further elaboration?

(Why should he respond to such a question when you do not feel the need to respond to such a question? You are both engaged in the same thing. It doesn't look like it has anything to do with art or science from my vantage point in either case.)

[Reforged]

Please explain Chad, why you insist that the bible is symbolic except for the god bit?

Biblical interpretation is as much an art as a science. I pose the question to DT because I am open to learning something new, something I may not have considered before.

I agree, the many complex layers of finely woven bullshit you have to craft to stop normal people locking fundamentalist fanatics speaking in tounges in asylums to be treated for their obvious insanity or simply not to laugh quite as hard at them alone is an astonishing feat which is at least on par with crafting the large hadron collider.

Just a shame its not nearly as productive really, isn't it?




... :-)

[LastPoet]

Biblical interpretation is as much an art as a science.

Science isn't and will never be an Art, Art belongs to the subjective while Science is Objective, you should understant what you are saying before you hit the 'post' button. While I do agree that your vaunted 'Biblical interpretation' mabe an art, you are dead wrong trying to put science as an art.

[Jackalope]

LastPoet - I believe that what Chad was saying was that interpretation is as much an art as it is a science.

[DeeTee]

Biblical interpretation is as much an art as a science.

Science isn't and will never be an Art, Art belongs to the subjective while Science is Objective, you should understant what you are saying before you hit the 'post' button. While I do agree that your vaunted 'Biblical interpretation' mabe an art, you are dead wrong trying to put science as an art.

Science is never objective. That state is an impossibility Read Dever's book, Did God Have a Wife (pg. 83 I believe and the introduction) and you will see he maintains the position that objectivity is impossible.

Why atheists continue to argue for it is beyond anyone. There isn't one evolutionist who is objective.

[Minimalist]

Science is never objective.

Neither are bible thumping idiots. I'll go with science, thank you. At least they make an effort.