nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 95:
Line 95: + + + + +
→YEC v. OEC: true but not literal; Biblical authorship
:::::This is simply a semantics argument. I really hope you know I didn't literally mean the earth "looked" old.
:::::This is simply a semantics argument. I really hope you know I didn't literally mean the earth "looked" old.
:::::According to the CP [[Genesis]] page, it was written somewhere in the vicinity of 1400-500BC. There is also considerable question as to who authored it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::According to the CP [[Genesis]] page, it was written somewhere in the vicinity of 1400-500BC. There is also considerable question as to who authored it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::: You've explained well how something can be true but not literal, but your example was not of a truth-claim, i.e. claiming that something specific is the case, and you've not applied your reasoning to the Bible. How can you read Genesis 1 as "true but not literal", when it is making specific non-metaphorical claims about history?
:::::: I've heard a number of people claim that the Earth simply ''looks'' old, so no, I didn't realise that you didn't mean what you appeared to be saying.
:::::: 1400-500 B.C. is not synonymous with the 10th century B.C., is it? And although the [[Genesis]] article mentions the later date as being promoted, that date has no credibility.
:::::: The Bible claims to be written by God, but "ghost-written" by human authors. In ''some'' cases, there is no certainty about who those human authors were, and when it comes to the Bible, some people will question the truth of every last point, so there will be those who question the human authorship of those parts where the authorship is not in doubt, but that doesn't all add up to it being "unattributed".
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
First of all, Mr. Jazzman, I shall ask you to produce your "seemingly contrary evidence"--more on that word ''seemingly'' later on. I ask this to challenge you. But I am not challenging you to fight. I am merely challenging you to think, and think ''hard'', about the quality of what you take to be the evidence contrary to a young earth.
First of all, Mr. Jazzman, I shall ask you to produce your "seemingly contrary evidence"--more on that word ''seemingly'' later on. I ask this to challenge you. But I am not challenging you to fight. I am merely challenging you to think, and think ''hard'', about the quality of what you take to be the evidence contrary to a young earth.