Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:17:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
402 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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?
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) 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! (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
