Guest shiloh357 Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 11 hours ago, one.opinion said: Oh, absolutely! I could not agree more. Then you should abandon your evolutionary worldview and develop a more coherent theology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 26, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 26, 2018 1 hour ago, shiloh357 said: Then you should abandon your evolutionary worldview and develop a more coherent theology. Over the last several posts, you have presented many good reasons to reject an atheistic view of evolution. I don't have an atheistic view of evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 26, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 26, 2018 57 minutes ago, maryjayne said: OR God wanted Adam to appreciate the helper He made, and cherish her as unique and special in a way animal companions were not. I have never doubted that this delay of God's was deliberate. Regardless, it is readily apparent that there is non-literal language employed in this portion of the chapter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 26, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 26, 2018 1 hour ago, maryjayne said: but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. If taken literally, God and Adam were checking form of livestock, beast, and bird, looking for a suitable "help meet". Obviously, this is not the case. Adam needed a female counterpart of his own species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 7 hours ago, one.opinion said: Over the last several posts, you have presented many good reasons to reject an atheistic view of evolution. I don't have an atheistic view of evolution. Evolution is atheistic by nature. You have been trying to force the Bible to accommodate a theory that is both atheistic and anti-biblical by nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 2 hours ago, one.opinion said: Regardless, it is readily apparent that there is non-literal language employed in this portion of the chapter. No, there is no non-literal language in that chapter and so far you have been able to produce ANY non-literal language. You keep trying to subjectively and arbitrarily assign that value to the text, but when asked to actually produce textual evidence, all you can produce are examples of what you don't think should be seen as literal. You have never been able to produce any actually textual evidence by the author that demands the text to be read as anything other than literal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 26, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 26, 2018 19 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: Evolution is atheistic by nature. Scientific theories, including the theory of evolution, are non-theistic. They cannot tell us anything about the supernatural, but are confined to what can be physically measured, tested, or observed. 18 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: No, there is no non-literal language in that chapter and so far you have been able to produce ANY non-literal language. Are you claiming that Adam and God tried to look at all the livestock, beasts, and birds to try to find a "help meet" and just couldn't find one? 19 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: all you can produce are examples of what you don't think should be seen as literal. Yes, I am producing examples of non-literal language. I cannot understand why you continue to repeat that I have not produced any, while I have made very sound cases for two examples in this very thread. Is there better "textual evidence" than showing examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 26, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 26, 2018 1 minute ago, Sojourner414 said: Exactly what non-literal language would that be, precisely? What part of that passage are you claiming to be "non literal"? Please read the thread, then we can discuss what I have already written. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 26, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 26, 2018 12 minutes ago, Sojourner414 said: No, how about you back up your claims instead of side-stepping them as you've done for much of this thread? I've already made it very clear cases for non-literal language. If you won't take the time and effort to read it, I'm not going to take the time and effort to re-write it. I have side-stepped nothing, and you would realize that IF you actually read the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 5 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Scientific theories, including the theory of evolution, are non-theistic. They cannot tell us anything about the supernatural, but are confined to what can be physically measured, tested, or observed. No, true science is able to look at the world that God made and ascertain that it was created by an all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful Creator. His signature is all over creation. It is atheists and their theories like Evolution that reject or refuse to acknowledge God as the Creator. Creation is by nature, supernatural and God is the best explanation for why and how everything came into existence. Even in scientific work, the nature and power of the Creator is revealed, even if scientists refuse to admit it. Evolution isn't scientific. Evolution is mockery and caricature of real science. Quote Are you claiming that Adam and God tried to look at all the livestock, beasts, and birds to try to find a "help meet" and just couldn't find one? Nope, and the Bible doesn't say that, such is what happened. The problem is that you don't actually say what the Bible says. You expect me to respond to you based on your gross misrepresentation of what the text says and I am not going to do that. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. (Gen 2:19-20) The Bible doesn't say that God looked and looked and couldn't find a helper for Adam. Perhaps you need to actually read your Bible... What text actually tells us is that there was no kinship between Adam and the animal kingdom. Adam has no relation to the animal world. All it says is that there were no animals that would be suitable companions for Adam. Adam was made separate from the animal world, he didn't evolve from it. Adam was made apart from them and given dominion over them. That's all that text indicates. Quote Yes, I am producing examples of non-literal language. No, you have not, not one. All you have produced are examples of events that YOU don't accept as literal. Quote I cannot understand why you continue to repeat that I have not produced any, while I have made very sound cases for two examples in this very thread. Is there better "textual evidence" than showing examples? You have not made any such case. When I say textual evidence, I mean something in the grammar, syntax and recognizable idioms or figures of speech that indicate that the author intended something other than a literal event. You provide examples of supernatural events and since you cannot make room for those supernatural events, those occurrences must be non-literal. That is simply not how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts