5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + +
Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally? (view source)
Revision as of 18:56, March 4, 2009
, 18:56, March 4, 2009no edit summary
If one looks at the real evidence, the evidence being the book of Genesis, and the rest of the bible, the true word, the world is really only about 6000 years old. The Bible talks of many different aspects of history, and in almost all cases has other historical weight behind its claims other to itself. If the Bible can be seen as a valid historical source, providing accurate evidence when it is read literally, it is only logical to read all its aspects with absolute trust. When this is done it works the world to be 6000 years old, therefore the world is about 6000 years old. You can't just pick and choose what to read literally and what not to. The meaning of the bible can't be used by humans like this, otherwise we could make it mean anything. The Bible is an instrument of teaching, as previously mentioned. If a history book for lessons was not to be taken literally, it would not be suitable for real learning, therefore the Bible must be taken literally for it to have any relavence whatsoever! I would argue it is not a matter of personal opinion as mentioned in a revious post by Futsunushi, something is simply written to be taken literally or allegorically, in this case it is literal. You do not read a book that was written to be read literally, in an allegorical fashion, if you took the personal opinion to read it like this you would be being stupid and illogical. End of story. --[[User:Badger15|Badger15]] 13:56, 4 March 2009 (EST)
I'm curious as to know what the general consensus of Conservapedians is in regards to this topic. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 15:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
I'm curious as to know what the general consensus of Conservapedians is in regards to this topic. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 15:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)