Difference between revisions of "Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Undo revision 211977 by Special:Contributions/Aschlafly (User talk:Aschlafly) (No reason to delete Futsunushi's entry)) |
(Added response) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Personally, I believe allegorically. But, this IS an issue of theology so it is based almost totally on personal opinion.-- Futsunushi | Personally, I believe allegorically. But, this IS an issue of theology so it is based almost totally on personal opinion.-- Futsunushi | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I agree. If you fail to separate allegory from fact, then you have lost all meaning Biblical writers have so eloquently put within stories. I personally believe that the first creation story (as well as other things in the Bible) should not be taken literally. I believe this particular story was meant to explain the origins of the universe, and God's role in its creation. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 22:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 02:11, June 29, 2007
I'm curious as to know what the general consensus of Conservapedians is in regards to this topic. --Trend 15:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Personally, I believe allegorically. But, this IS an issue of theology so it is based almost totally on personal opinion.-- Futsunushi
- I agree. If you fail to separate allegory from fact, then you have lost all meaning Biblical writers have so eloquently put within stories. I personally believe that the first creation story (as well as other things in the Bible) should not be taken literally. I believe this particular story was meant to explain the origins of the universe, and God's role in its creation. --Trend 22:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)