8
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 59:
Line 59: +
Talk:Falsifiability of Creation (view source)
Revision as of 15:40, April 14, 2008
, 15:40, April 14, 2008→six twenty-four-hour days
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
::Philip, that quote seems to suggest that Jesus endorses the creation as a ''metaphor'' to defend the permanence, and mystical qualities, of marriage. He's using it metaphorically, not literally; in fact, that seems to suggest that creation ought to be understood as a metaphor to inform the values of the Bible, but that literalism is not necessary to adhere to the law. In fact, in the very next passage Jesus abdicates Mosaic law, an act which, in my opinion, questions the continued relevance and importance of Mosaic law, and suggests that the entirety of the Old Testament ought to be read in the context of Jesus' redemption. If the New Covenant supersedes the Old, ought we not look critically at what still remains relevant from the old Covenant?-[[User:Exp|Exp]] 11:36, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
::Philip, that quote seems to suggest that Jesus endorses the creation as a ''metaphor'' to defend the permanence, and mystical qualities, of marriage. He's using it metaphorically, not literally; in fact, that seems to suggest that creation ought to be understood as a metaphor to inform the values of the Bible, but that literalism is not necessary to adhere to the law. In fact, in the very next passage Jesus abdicates Mosaic law, an act which, in my opinion, questions the continued relevance and importance of Mosaic law, and suggests that the entirety of the Old Testament ought to be read in the context of Jesus' redemption. If the New Covenant supersedes the Old, ought we not look critically at what still remains relevant from the old Covenant?-[[User:Exp|Exp]] 11:36, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
Furthermore, the power of the metaphor would be undimmed if the Bible were read by the day/age model, or if it were read to suggest that God created the ''souls'' of man and women only, and put them into extant, evolved bodies. So, literalism is not necessary for the law... so I think the "NT requires it" argument ought to die.-[[User:Exp|Exp]] 11:40, 14 April 2008 (EDT)