Should we take the creation story literally?


#124

Ouch. Careful what you say, even if you speak in ignorance. If it turns out God did use evolution, I wouldn’t call Him terrible…Just like He wouldn’t be terrible if He used YEC. God is good, no matter how He decided to create things.

But, animals, plants, stars are of little value to Him, compared to us humans, to whom He made image bearers. Animals die, they are eaten, they are eaten by us, we get nutrients and they self regulate their population. Plants die, nitrogen cycle, gives us oxygen and life. Stars are born and die, black holes and heat ect, it supports our lives/universe. These things like animals, plants and stars are FOR humans. They also declare God’s glory, but they allow humans to exist.

So yes, in that sense, God created death.

As far as the spirit goes, no, that was never intended to die, unless, it rejected God, which is spiritual death. It isn’t a consequence so to speak, it is a result. Being apart from God is death. Because God is life, separation is death. So God created death…just as God created sin, if you chose to look at it like that.

But it had to be created, just like the law had to be created (or was chosen by God to be created, to give more glory to God. In sin and death and the law, it reveals to us God’s holiness and reveals the whole purpose of creation, for the Son of God to show God’s love, so that the Father may be glorified.

Jesus died on the cross to conquer spiritual death, it is not good for a man that wants to be with God to be separate from God. But when man chose to reject God’s ways, and not allow God to work through us to glorify Him, we tried to receive glory, we were separated. Now if we repent and even if we wanted to be in the presence of God, we couldn’t, for we are no longer holy like God, but sinful. After Jesus died for us, now those that want to be with God, can again, thorugh the price paid by Jesus, when He conquered death, conquered us not being able to be with God even though we want to.

People die every second, Christ dien’t die on the cross to abolish physical death.

No, that is heartless. Jesus wept. Now as to why has been debated and preached on many times. But Jesus had compassion and mourned. There is nothing wrong with either. I lost my mom, I mourned. I remember the great times I had with her, and know I will miss future times with her and my kids. But I was not entitled to having her or a mom as good as her. I’m thankful to God who gave her to me for 30 years, and know that God is good and my mom is home with Him.

So while I wouldn’t out right say that to someone who just lost a loved one…If they are a Christian, then yes, death is a good thing, they are with their heavenly Father in many more ways better than they were here with the curse of the flesh holding us back.

Death to an unsaved person is not good, now they will possibly spend eternity apart from God, and not just this life apart from Him. We don’t know what happens after death, maybe God gives a second chance? Maybe when they see Him, they bow and confess to Jesus and are saved? I don’t know these answers.

To summarize, spiritual death is never a good thing, but technically, God “created” it. Physical is very good and a merciful thing for God to allow us to leave these fleshly bodies and be in glorified bodies with Him if you want Him to be your Lord. If not possibly you cease to exist, which is still forever separated from God for eternity if you cease to exist.

That is terrible logic, or lack there of. I could ask you, Did God create sin? then it must be a “good” thing when people sin…

We both know that is not true. You are grasping at straws here.

Or like saying people created buildings to fall. They create buildings to stand strong, but in time and weather, they will corrode and fall. That doesn’t mean the creator intended for this to happen. Perhaps with proper maintenance and upkeep, it would never fall.

That is like our bodies, which are mortal, created mortal, with the proper tree of life of God, it will never die. But due to sin, we can’t be in God’s presence which is near that tree (or is that tree in a metaphor?), so in that sense, sin dooms us to an eventual physical death that we would not have experienced had we never sinned and were able to eat of the fruit that continues our mortal lives. So in that sense, physical and spiritual death in HUMANS was not here until the fall of man (but man was still mortal before the fall).

But animals, plants and stars still are dying and die all the time, it is God’s plan. Name a single verse were God mourns a plant or animal death? In fact, doesn’t Jesus curse a plant to death?

I also think you are confusing immortality and living forever. One can slowly be dying, and be regenerated time and time again and never die. That person would not be immortal, but could live for forever. If a mortal man may or may not have to eat from the fruit of the tree of life daily or annually or maybe once (which would then make them immortal). We need oxygen, if we don’t get it we die, we are mortal. You could argue we are being revived back to life every breath we take. Eventually though our lungs shut down or the heart that pumps that oxygen to the brain stops and we die. God doesn’t need oxygen or anything to sustain His life, He is life. We are not, we are image bearers of Him, and in Him and through Him we are given life, extending our mortal bodies to eternity, but not being immortal, only God is immortal.

Just accept that there was death before the fall, and not all death is a bad thing, especially the very many levels/meanings of death. You have to specify death of an animal, plant, or star, or human, and then with humans, physical or spiritual death.


(James McKay) #125

This takes me back to the central point of my last post. Who exactly are these “petroleum geologists who are creationists” of whom you speak? Who exactly is using young-earth models of how oil deposits were formed?

Well the only way that it can be untrue is if the Arrhenius equation does not apply to oil formation. Have you any explanation as to why this might be the case, and if so, what equation does apply instead?

Read the article again. Carefully.

Dating methods differentiate between rocks that contain oil that is undercooked, oil that is overcooked, and oil that is just right. That is the whole point of the article.

I’m sorry, but you’re simply not getting your facts straight here. No-one – and certainly not “evolutionists” – just “labels the rock with a date, a very big date with lots of zeroes”. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. The ages of rock strata are determined by measuring things.

If the YEC method of finding oil even exists, let alone saves on paperwork and saves on money, then why is nobody using it?

And if I’m wrong on that count, and somebody is using it, then who?


(Mervin Bitikofer) #126

Actually … he did - and does. Read Psalm 104:27-30, Psalm 116:15 or the end of Job 38.

That would be a terrible world! I praise God that the world you describe above isn’t the one we live in, though your second sentence above may have some truth in it to ponder and take on board. Even there, though, God often surprises us.

…Or rather, we may console them that death does not get the last word. But without going through death, there is no resurrection. (John 12:24-25, Romans 6:5)

Indeed. Death is conquered and denied its finality. That doesn’t mean it was denied its physical existence. We still must go through it before we reach the other side, and that seems to have great import both physically and spiritually.


(George Brooks) #127

Perfect, @danswoodtree,

I would use the same method of interpretation of Genesis… and a six day creation. “God is speaking to [us] in broad poetic language. It’s merely a literary technique…”

Thank you for helping me with that problem with Genesis.


(Ben Watkins) #128

I’m a Mormon (member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). We have books of scripture in addition to the Bible. One is the Pearl of Great Price (explanation found here).

There are two creation stories in these scriptures. One is from the book of Abraham, translated from Egyptian papyri by the prophet Joseph Smith, published in 1842. Below are some verses that, for me, shed light on the creation story:

1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

8 … and this was the second time that they called night and day (emphasis added).

13 And it came to pass that they numbered the days; from the evening until the morning they called night; and it came to pass, from the morning until the evening they called day; and it was the third time. (emphasis added)

14 And the Gods organized …

16 And the Gods organized …

18 And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed.

20 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life …

24 And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind …

27 So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image …

2 And the Gods said among themselves: On the seventh time we will end our work, which we have counseled; and we will rest on the seventh time from all our work which we have counseled.

(My comments now) These words, in particular, help me merge the Creation story with evolutionary theory: time (rather than day), organized, ordered, prepared, watched.


(Theophilus Book) #129

[quote=“Susan_Linkletter, post:1, topic:37546, full:true”]
What if our entire approach to the creation story as outlined in the first few chapters of Genesis has been entirely wrong because we have tried to understand it in a literal sense. What if the creation story is more of a parable from which we can draw certain truths, like God created man, that His intention was to walk with us in perfect communion, that we were created to live forever and that we have destroyed our communion with God by putting our faith in the wrong kind of knowledge - knowledge of God (tree of life) or knowledge of good and evil (science). [/quote]

I really do not think “Science” constitutes the “Good and evil” of Genesis. The eating of forbidden fruit was not a test of scientific jurisprudence, but was rather a test of obedience over-riding curiosity.

Tree of knowledge of good and evil, yes. Tree of life, too late. It was already moved to sit beside the river of life in heaven, after the fall. Good observation.

[quote=“Susan_Linkletter, post:1, topic:37546, full:true”]When Jesus told the story about the Prodigal Son - the story of a young man who asks his father for his inheritance, then squanders it and returns home to the delight of his father and the anger his brother. Was this a true story about a real family or was it a made up story to help us understand a truth? I don’t think it matters. What we learn from this story is true whether the story is true or not. In fact we could spend hours just debating about whether this story is true or not and miss the entire point of the story. I think that this is exactly what we are doing with the creation story. Whether or not you take the creation story literally, there are some very simple truths that we can get from it:

  1. God created the earth by willing and speaking it into being.
  • God’s word has power
  1. God wanted (and wants) a relationship with us.
  • Knowledge of good and evil (science) still gets in the way of our quest for eternal life.
  1. Life on earth is not what it was supposed to be.
  • We are still seeking knowledge of good and evil instead of Knowledge of God.
  1. We were created to live forever physically and spiritually in harmony with both nature and God.
  2. Men and women were created as equals.[/quote]

Number 5 is subject to interpretation. Equal as far as having a soul, and being subject to God’s laws; Agreed!

Not equal in appearance; form; shape; function; abilities; logic; way of thinking; and in fact I suggest there is not really much “Equality” between any two Human Beings, regardless of gender.

I am taller than my Father; the problem is in figuring out whether taller or shorter has the advantage. Depends upon what we are running form, or toward.

Since “Literally” is a reference to taking it by the letters that comprise the story, I always take everything in scripture literally. THEN I begin to sort it out as I progress in wisdom, and in favor with God and Man and in accord with scripture.


#130

That is an insightful statement.

It appears to me from this post and your other posts, that you are inferring that you are the only one that does this?

This is exactly what and EC does. The first time we read Gen, we probably (At least I did) took it literal. THEN, I began to sort it out as I progressed in wisdom and knowledge. Knowledge tells us that we can measure light and light is 13.8 billion years old. Wisdom tells me that God is not deceitful, but creating a “false measurement” or the appearance that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, doesn’t sound like it would come from God.

Wisdom would also teach me that the Bible does not have 1 single point of science being taught. When Jesus was on Earth, He taught us how to live, and didn’t teach us one single letter/number of science. This also tells me that Genesis is possibly not scientific.

Then in still progressing in knowledge and wisdom, learning how a ANE would have interpreted/heard/read the Genesis account (or the creation account before it was even written in Genesis), would have saw a 7 day creation as a story that mimics the inauguration of the temple. And when God rested, they would also see that as temple language when God ruled. This is all in accordance with scripture. We don’t know how long it took them to build the 1st tabernacle, God didn’t seem to care to tell us how long it took. But once it was built, He did think it necessary that we would know what it’s function was, and the contents of it, and that He would dwell/rest/rule in it with man.

Then one could read the Genesis story and see how it is an amazing story that teaches us about our purpose, our function, who God is, who created us, and why. Then when one looks at the Genesis story, one sees how it would not be very wise to look at it as a material account or a lesson in science or cosmologic geography.

But, maybe I am wrong on all of that, and maybe it was a literal 6 day creation. I don’t know, no human knows for certain. I guess God could reveal it to us, there were some pretty amazing men of God in throughout the Bible. Why do you think God did no feel it necessary to reveal to them of this?

Because in the scheme of things, it is so not important!
When you stand before God, do you think He wants to hear that you had faith in Him and want Him as King of your life, which resulted in you loving others and giving to the poor. That you humbly admitted that you didn’t know or have all the answers, but trusted in God’s goodness, mercy, faithfulness, and love?
Or
Do you think He wants to hear that you had ‘faith’ in YEC? That you berated people and did no treat them kindly if they didn’t believe you, that you insinuated that you pridefully had the sole correct understanding of that particular book of the Bible?

In summary, if you want to take it literal, take it literal. For me, using the knowledge and wisdom God provided me with, I am lead to think of a different interpretation. I don’t need to convince you or it, or attack you to defend it, it is my stance. If you ask me why, and can give you reasons. If you claim that you have the sole correct interpretation, I can give some good arguments as for why that is wrong.

But if you simply tell me you believe in YEC. Not that YEC is guaranteed truth and you have a monopoly on the correct interpretation. You are a fellow brother in Christ, may God receive the glory when we show other God’s love as we interact and fellowship with one another. This doesn’t need to be such a point of contention among Christians.


(Theophilus Book) #131

[quote=“still_learning, post:130, topic:37546, full:true”]

That is an insightful statement.

It appears to me from this post and your other posts, that you are inferring that you are the only one that does this?[/QUOTE]

So if I tell you I am 85 years old, I am inferring I am the only person 85 years old?

I am simply stating facts. No inferences, no ego trip, no exclusive claim to the facts as presented.

Am I also to infer you are the only one who does that?


#132

No, but if you say I am 85 years old, then make a claim that is in contrast to another person who doesn’t hold your views who isn’t 85, you are inferring that only 85 year olds are correct.

Maybe I shoul have said…it appears that you are inferring that any EC (or anyone who doesn’t agree with your views) is not utilizing that process. Inferring we aren’t seeking wisdom, or are searching the scriptures or seeking favor of God.

Inferring that @Susan_Linkletter or anyone that holds different views than your is incorrect and must not be In accordance with scripture.

When someone says “I don’t take this specific part literal because x, y z”. And you respond with, “I always start literal, then allow God and the scriptures guide me differently”. As if the OP didn’t do the same and arrive at her non literal conclusion in the same manner.

No, I would hope/expect all who read the Bible do that. I would also hope/expect that all who read the Bible don’t believe that they (or those who share their ideals) don’t think their interpretation is the only correct one.


(Theophilus Book) #133

[quote=“still_learning, post:132, topic:37546, full:true”]

No, but if you say I am 85 years old, then make a claim that is in contrast to another person who doesn’t hold your views who isn’t 85, you are inferring that only 85 year olds are correct.[/quote]

You have no idea how ridiculous that is. If I ask you what you understand from reading a particular translation of scripture, and you respond with what you truly understand, I cannot “infer” you think you are the only one with true understanding.

While I hold to certain beliefs based upon my own research, I am not gullible enough, and have not enough ego as to think I am the only one with the truth. Nor do I hesitate to exchange views with others, in hopes of correction or information that will lead me to an even better understanding. “Inference” has no hold on me.

I do not think you should have jumped to any conclusion whatsoever. THAT approach only serves to lead people to hesitate to say anything at all to you, because of your jump to “inference” that is so far removed from reality.

That would mean that whatever someone thinks is true regardless of what the scripture actually says, is correct. I will ALWAYS compare a persons statement of belief with the scripture itself, and when it differs, how can you possibly say it agrees?

Am I then to “infer” you don’t know the meaning of “Literal?” It means “by the letter.” If you are reading words, then you are going by the letters that comprise the words. And if you come to a place where two words sound alike, but are spelled differently, you cannot simply swap the words to come up with your own assessment of the literal meaning, if it does not agree with the letters comprising the words.

Since there can be only one correct interpretation I fail to see why it is an advantage to think everyone has a different “Correct” interpretation. THAT is the origin of the thousands of Denominations and splinter groups. It is a matter of tolerating the intolerable. No thanks!

The problem you are having is, you are failing to understand that everyone with an opinion SHOULD accept that their opinion is the truth, unless and until they are presented with new argument that clears up some aspect or other, so they have a clearer understanding which is acceptable as closer to the truth.

We will ALL know the truth of scripture when we stand in judgment at the end. Some will be more surprised than others. I n the meantime, we can only offer what we believe to be true, and hope to not offend someone who differs in opinion, but who is intolerant toward those who think they have the truth.

If I did not think I have the truth of scripture, why would I attempt to share my belief? Surely, YOU do not try to share what YOU think is false interpretation of scripture. So why do you accuse anyone of “inferring” “Only I have the truth of scripture?”

Don’t you think you have the truth? Or are you satisfied to just post lies?


#134

You need to change this to “when it differs from my interpretation”. My interpretation will always agree with my interpretation of scripture. For you to say it differs from scripture implies yours is the only correct interpretation.

If you are not reading scripture in the Hebrew and Greek you are not reading the text literally. To actually read the texts literally you have to know the language, idioms, and culture of the person who wrote the text. Most of us have to make do with the good but fallible work of translators.

I am always amused when people argue a point of theology that hinges on the prepositions used in the English text when the prepositions don’t exist in the original language and were added by the translator to make the English understandable.

So do you feel like you have the “correct” interpretation or just one that is “closer to the truth”? And if yours is just closer to the truth why should I place any more meaning on yours vs mine?

So when does your new denomination begin? BTW, do you see why people react to your posts they way they do?


#135

I always take everything in scripture literally. THEN I begin to sort it out as I progress in wisdom, and in favor with God and Man and in accord with scripture.

Sounds like you are confusing yourself with Jesus Christ.


(A.M. Wolfe) #136

That’s right. There’s no middle ground, where I think I have the truth but am not absolutely dead certain. That middle ground? Doesn’t exist. I am either 110% certain of something, or I’m lying!


(Phil) #137

Enn’s “Sin of Certainty” gives food for thought. Here is one quote I lifted from a quick Google that is good to consider:
“Life’s challenges mock and then destroy a faith that rests on correct thinking and the preoccupation with defending it. And this is a good thing. Life’s challenges clear the clutter so we can see more clearly that faith calls for trust instead.” (116)


(Theophilus Book) #138

[quote=“Bill_II, post:134, topic:37546, full:true”]

You need to change this to “when it differs from my interpretation”.[/QUOTE]

So when Gen 1;1 reads “In the beginning” and someone says “That means at some point in the day.” I cannot determine it means “In the Beginning?” “It differs from MY interpretation?”

Get over yourself.

You accuse me of that one more time and I will respond to you no more.
I have changed my understanding many times, because I do not form an opinion and camp out on it. I continue, not to “prove my position” of understanding, but to improve it through further study and prayer.

When I say someone’s remark misses the meaning of scripture, it is because scripture says one thing, and one thing only. Then I apply the scripture “Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay.” Other than this comes from evil."

There is a popular head of the bible faculty in a leading bible college, who teaches that there is a difference between an utterance and the sentence that provides that utterance. He quotes Peter Cotterell and Max Turner; “An utterance is a unique one-time statement. The same words may be repeated on a different occasion, but this would not be the same utterance. It would however, be the same sentence. Applying this to lexical studies, a distinction must be made between meaning and instance-otherwise a dictionary would have to give all instances, labeling each of them with a distinct meaning.”

THIS is becoming obviously the new standard in some seminaries and Bible language studies. I cannot accept it. I cannot NOT deny it. It is a total LIE.

“Let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay” is GOD’S OWN standard for our understanding.

[quote=“Theo_Book, post:133, topic:37546”]
Am I then to “infer” you don’t know the meaning of “Literal?” It means “by the letter.” If you are reading words, then you are going by the letters that comprise the words.[/quote]

Valid point. However, if I find just one word that serves as a focus of understanding, and find it is either not a translation, but is an addition that defies the translation, I can make a “literal” determination that it violates the original intent of the literal sentence. Like providing “was” to “before the world” to influence readers to believe Jesus "had glory with God before the world was, when the reference actually is speaking of the value of prophecy, when Jesus had glory before the world (like Peter stood “before the gate.”) Jesus had glory right out in front of the whole world when God, through Isaiah the prophet declared, “He shall be extolled, and made very high.” In that instant Jesus, not yet begotten nor born, was given glory “before the world.”

[quote=“Bill_II, post:134, topic:37546, full:true”]
I am always amused when people argue a point of theology that hinges on the prepositions used in the English text when the prepositions don’t exist in the original language and were added by the translator to make the English understandable.

[quote=“Theo_Book, post:133, topic:37546”]
Since there can be only one correct interpretation[/quote]

So do you have an example of my misuse of prepositions?

Not my problem, as I do not make the claim. I offer an understanding for consideration. I do not offer interpretation that your soul depends upon for salvation.

[quote=“Bill_II, post:134, topic:37546, full:true”]

Well I see why YOU do. YOU assume inferences when none exist.


#139

I was thinking of something a little more complicated that Genesis 1:1, but even then is this verse just a section heading for what comes next or is it a part of the creation story? Two different ways to understand this one verse.

I am not accusing you of anything. Just pointing out how I hear what you are saying.

So is this “one thing” your personal interpretation? You certainly act like it is.

That was a general comment not directed to anything you have said.

You may not think you make the claim but the way you phrase yourself it sounds like you do. If I have misunderstood you then sorry. Just offer you understanding with a little less forcefulness.

No need to shout. Funny, but since you don’t know me this is actually an inference that you have just made.


(Theophilus Book) #140

[quote=“Bill_II, post:139, topic:37546, full:true”]

I was thinking of something a little more complicated that Genesis 1:1, but even then is this verse just a section heading for what comes next or is it a part of the creation story? Two different ways to understand this one verse.[/quote]

I have confronted several on different boards, based upon the fact more than two people discussed it.

LITERAL WORD ORDER OFF Gen 1:1
In beginning, created the God the Heavens and the Earth.
(No definite article before “beginning.”)

LOGICAL WORD ORDER
In beginning, The God created the Heavens and the Earth

I am not accusing you of anything. Just pointing out how I hear what you are saying.[/quote]

Except you did not “hear me say - I INFER” anything. It is YOUR own inference. It was an accusation, at least that is what I hear YOU say.

So is this “one thing” your personal interpretation? You certainly act like it is.[/quote]

No. My understanding of what it says is only one among many. Mine takes precedence only to me. I only offer on any board, a perspective for consideration.

Then you are ignorant of what an accusation looks like and sound like.

[quote=“Theo_Book, post:138, topic:37546”]
Not my problem, as I do not make the claim. I offer an understanding for consideration.[/quote]

Right! Like YOUR understanding with accusation of inference. No “forcefulness.”

What? Big letters hurt your ears? WoW!

It was not an inference. It was an accusation.


#141

Also no “in”. Just beginning.

An inference based on your choice of words.

Could you please explain why you would take what I said as an accusation against YOU?

Sorry this makes no sense.

Standard internet convention. All caps is considered shouting. Are you unable to see the humor?


#142

Thanks. That is all I was trying to say.

The one truth I would claim, is the righteousness, faithfulness, mercy, justice, grace, and love of God. That is God our Creator and Provider. This may be something written in scriptures, but it is also revealed to me by God, it is evident throughout my life and is observed daily.

Her 9:24
“but let the one who boasts boast about this: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD.“

That I will boast in.

His goodness isn’t confined to words in a book, it is real.
The YEC stance is confined to words in a book. A book that not every human has access to. But all humans have access to their Creator.

I will admit EC is confined to scientific studies. I don’t think the Bible says too much on it, or against it…because it is not a book of science, cosmological geography, biology, anatomy, it is a book of life, an amazing tool/method God have us to know Him and about life, but life exists outside it. It is just one of many many ways God reveals Himself to us.

I would also claim Jesus as the image of the invisible God, Jesus is a manifestation of Gods love, so that kind of piggy backs off of the truth above.

And it just so happens, that is that is a life lesson/application, not a geography stance. It is the theme of the Bible. Verses can have contradictory verses found, but the theme is not contradicted.

Pretty much everything else, can be interpreted different ways, using other verses to back up those interpretations.

I can be very passionate about the above truths, but I don’t see how anyone has such passion for such inconsequential things, like a the cosmological history. God doesn’t care about things/objects, He cares about hearts of me, the unseeable spirit, not the flesh or stars.

James 4:6
“ Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us?“

Another theme in the Bible is pride, and how it is not good. Pride in anything other than who God is, is not good. Pride in a literal interpretation of an inconsequential event is not good.

I guess that was rhetorical, it can you seriously answer that.

You can believe in YEC, I have many brothers and sisters in Christ that do. It’s OK.

And obviously I think that I am choosing the most logical stance. That would be foolish to think there is a more logical stance, and not go with it. I agree with you there. You think the Genesis account is a literal material account. You might be right. I obviously don’t think you are, I think it is a purpose/function account. But the difference is, I admit I don’t know for certain, and that I know how extremely insignificant of a issue this is that I could be wrong and don’t know the truth on the creation account matter.


(Theophilus Book) #143

[quote=“Bill_II, post:141, topic:37546, full:true”]

Also no “in”. Just beginning.[/quote]

GREEK “En arxee” translates to “In Beginning.”

Then do not accuse ME of inferring anything when it is YOUR inference based upon YOUR understanding of MY words.

[quote=“Bill_II, post:141, topic:37546, full:true”]
Could you please explain why you would take what I said as an accusation against YOU?[/quote]

Glad to, in the hope of eventual PEACE!
When you said I “inferred” my interpretation is the only true interpretation.
That is an accusation, i.e., applying an action on my part I did not do.

Standard internet convention. All caps is considered shouting. Are you unable to see the humor?[/quote]

Agreed! Please show me any sentence I posted consisting of ALL CAPS!