Changes

Feel free to declare victory on this point. You are quite far away from your earlier position that your view is the only legitimate view, but now it is merely one view that could be logically possible. If you are happy with such a minimal position, I'd call that a victory too. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Feel free to declare victory on this point. You are quite far away from your earlier position that your view is the only legitimate view, but now it is merely one view that could be logically possible. If you are happy with such a minimal position, I'd call that a victory too. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)

: I've never said that "my view is the only legitimate view" in so many words.  That's your spin.  I have said that the young-Earth view is the only legitimate way to understand the Bible, but I never said that the colophon explanation of how Genesis was written was the only legitimate view. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:06, 20 December 2007 (EST)

: I've never said that "my view is the only legitimate view" in so many words.  That's your spin.  I have said that the young-Earth view is the only legitimate way to understand the Bible, but I never said that the colophon explanation of how Genesis was written was the only legitimate view. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:06, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Your way is only one way to understand the bible, since it may be translated in different ways, understood in different ways, and interpreted in different ways, different theories how the bible came about. And saying that your interpretation might be logical possible, that is not exactly much. There are other interpretations that are logically possible, too. It seem like you are arguing with the desired outcome in mind, namely that the scripture must be correct on a literal level, and with that in mind there indeed only a few possible interpretations. And yours might be one of them. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:06, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Your way is only one way to understand the bible, since it may be translated in different ways, understood in different ways, and interpreted in different ways, different theories how the bible came about. And saying that your interpretation might be logical possible, that is not exactly much. There are other interpretations that are logically possible, too. It seem like you are arguing with the desired outcome in mind, namely that the scripture must be correct on a fairly literal level, and with that in mind there indeed only a few possible interpretations. And yours might be one of them. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:06, 20 December 2007 (EST)

 

===Scientific Claims===

===Scientific Claims===

:"''From you wording it seems like you take  personal offense at scientists developing theories that contradict your reading of the bible.''":  What I object to is the scientists who didn't witness past events claiming superiority over God who did witness those events.

:"''From you wording it seems like you take  personal offense at scientists developing theories that contradict your reading of the bible.''":  What I object to is the scientists who didn't witness past events claiming superiority over God who did witness those events.