Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:50:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
402 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> > And let me just say you did an excellent job of discussing the matter. It's
> > all interpretive. The point of course being that I think you're leaning
> > towards literalism, and hence saying that evolution does NOT mesh with the
> > Bible, because you're interpreting the Bible as literal. Yes?
>
> If I interpret the Bible literally, evolution does not mesh with it. Correct.
Do you in fact interpret the Bible literally? All of it? So we *are*
mustard seeds in fact and not in metaphor? What about the contradictions;
do you interpret those literally, too?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) If you want a debate on Biblical meanings and literal interpretations, perhaps another thread would be appropriate. Here I'm working from the question of Genesis, evolution and origins. Sorry, but I don't have more time than that. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
