Difference between revisions of "Talk:Genesis 1-8 (Translated)"
(→24 hours rather than days?: new section) |
British cons (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Is this desirable? In my opinion no, as it takes away from the beauty of the book - '24 hours' rather than 'day' seems to be more suited to a textbook, rather than a beautiful book like the Bible. I will remove it, but feel free to put it back in if you disagree. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 13:07, 15 October 2009 (EDT) | Is this desirable? In my opinion no, as it takes away from the beauty of the book - '24 hours' rather than 'day' seems to be more suited to a textbook, rather than a beautiful book like the Bible. I will remove it, but feel free to put it back in if you disagree. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 13:07, 15 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==baramin== | ||
| + | Would it be better to use the modern conservative word [[Baraminology | baramin]] rather then kind?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 19:10, October 15, 2009
Perhaps chapters one and two could be combined in some way so that they clearly tell the same story in the same order? Liberals often claim that they show two differently ordered creation stories and it would be a good idea to clarify this.--British_cons (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
- That's a major re-write, something we're not doing. While I agree we should make clear that Genesis 2:6-25 expands on what happened in Genesis 1:26-27, re-writing Genesis is a more drastic step than that action requires. JacobB 15:31, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
Genesis 1:2
If "the waters under the heaven [were] gathered together unto one place, and ... the dry land appear[ed]" on the third day (Gen. 1:9), can it really be said that there were "oceans" on the first day? AngusF 18:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
24 hours rather than days?
Is this desirable? In my opinion no, as it takes away from the beauty of the book - '24 hours' rather than 'day' seems to be more suited to a textbook, rather than a beautiful book like the Bible. I will remove it, but feel free to put it back in if you disagree. DerickC 13:07, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
baramin
Would it be better to use the modern conservative word baramin rather then kind?--British_cons (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
