YECs Will Look At You Dead In The Eyes And Say Something Like This Creature Ate Mostly Plants

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

As it isn’t, He wouldn’t say it was.

But He did say it was. He told the Pharisees that the whole point of the scriptures was to tell about Him, and told two disciples that “in all the scriptures” things pointed to Him.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

in all the scriptures

quote mining I see.

Jesus was referring to specific Scriptures. You are abusing His words and taking them out of context.Not that you could be bothered to quote the actual Scriptures.

Richard

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

Jesus was referring to specific Scriptures.

It says “all”.
You use your philosophy to make very un-Christian theology.

[graft2vine (Ethan)]

@St.Roymond

No, they didn’t – they came right when the text says they came.

• Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and He brought them to the man to see what he would name each one. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Imperfect, consecutive imperfect, imperfect.

@St.Roymond

if they did believe you they wouldn’t regard them as alive; alive referred to the visibly animate (which included plants, but that’s a long excursus).

So plants can be an exception to “visibly animate” but microbes cant? They both meet that definition halfway; plants are visible and microbes are animate.

@St.Roymond

Modern Hebrew might use the word to include microbes

Thank you, so it is the correct word(s) for microbes. When it is written does not need to define terms. The Word is not bound by time.

@St.Roymond

It’s adding to the text by putting words in God’s mouth.

I didn’t put the words in God’s mouth. It is in the text in that Eve said it… and I don’t see any reason to believe she was putting the words in God’s mouth.

@St.Roymond

No – that’s exactly what allegory is, drawing out some kind of meaning that is not evident in the plain words.

What are you saying no to? That’s what I’m saying… the story is the allegory and I’m drawing out the meaning which happens to be the actual event.

@St.Roymond

distorting the text

Unraveling the allegory is not distorting the text.

@St.Roymond

Exactly – and what the writer and original audience understood is what the words mean.

Again, the Word is not bound by time.

@St.Roymond

But you’re not getting any deeper meaning, you’re getting a shallow irrelevant meaning. The Creation stories were not meant to communicate science, they’re in the wrong literary form for that.

The Creation story communicates what/why God created. Science is a study of the details of when/how God created. They have to be related.

@St.Roymond

and since all the scriptures speak of Him, that is the measure of any new interpretation if any passage.

I agree the scriptures speak of Him, and if we don’t believe what the scriptures say are true… or if we say the scriptures are only written for ancient peoples and are irrelevant for today… or if we turn it into some unrealistic fantasy with pseudoscience’s like YEC, then how can we really relate to Him? or believe in Him? But if scripture aligns with modern science… scripture written thousands of years ago confirming what science has discovered just in the last few hundred years… well that’s powerful! That speaks of true timeless inspiration!

@St.Roymond

You’re assuming that God communicated to Moses in terms of a MSWV. That denies the incarnational aspect of scripture: scripture comes through men, the Word becoming incarnate not in a form convenient to modern readers but to the writer through whom it is being breathed.

God communicated His thoughts/inspiration to Moses. Those thoughts then had to be put into words by Moses, and that would be from his own world view. Words are the incarnation of thoughts and those words have to be found to convey thoughts to others. If the modern reader can see the inspiration behind those words, that’s where the words become timeless… where we see the Living Word.

@St.Roymond

God didn’t care about science because it doesn’t convey theology.
Your approach is no better than YEC “flood geology” – science fiction.

God certainly does care about science as He is behind it. My approach is supportive of modern science which has the timeline of creation mostly figured out and is just filling the gaps, or providing a higher definition image. We are at the point now where we can look back at scripture, at the Word and see that His true image is aligned with the one being drawn by science.

@St.Roymond

indeed read as objective reports they are contradictory. And you make it worse because the only place that the second Creation story can fit with the first one is on Day 6 because that is when humans are first mentioned.

In saying they are contradictory, you are saying they are incorrect and therefore cant be trusted. Humans are mentioned on Day 6 to be made in God’s image, and that is only done though Jesus who is the Image of God. There is a path of mankind that concludes with the human form at the end of the first creation account, but then goes back to the start with mankind made of dust in the second creation account.

@St.Roymond

Yes, we do, because that’s where the message is.

No, because the message is the Living Word.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

Jesus was referring to specific Scriptures.

It says “all”.

Kindly cite the exact quote so that i can see for myself. Otherwise it is just hot air and posturing on your part.
(I will not ask again. If you refuse to quote Scripture you are admitting that you do not have any proof to your assertions.)

Richard