Difference between revisions of "Talk:Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Must include other verses to see sense of literal interpretation) |
(Added response) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I don't see how you can take Genesis literally on its own without allowing other verses (Second Peter, Isaiah, etc.) to more fully explain exactly what occured. | I don't see how you can take Genesis literally on its own without allowing other verses (Second Peter, Isaiah, etc.) to more fully explain exactly what occured. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :With other verses included into consideration, do you believe Genesis should be read literally, then? | ||
Revision as of 23:39, June 28, 2007
If you take into account Second Peter chapter 3 and consider that the first earth is the one that became 'without form and void,' then this 'second earth,' as he calls it, is the one God restored in the first chapter of Genesis.
I don't see how you can take Genesis literally on its own without allowing other verses (Second Peter, Isaiah, etc.) to more fully explain exactly what occured.
- With other verses included into consideration, do you believe Genesis should be read literally, then?