Difference between revisions of "Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Added response) |
m |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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 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. This particular story was meant to give some sort of explanation of the origins of the universe, and God's role in its creation; but not to hold against rather convincing modern theories. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 22:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT) |
Revision as of 02:13, 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. This particular story was meant to give some sort of explanation of the origins of the universe, and God's role in its creation; but not to hold against rather convincing modern theories. --Trend 22:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)