Originally posted by oxmixmudd

No. All one needs to do is come to grips with the fact Genesis 1 is not nor was ever supposed
to be a technical text. Only those that can't deal with that reality will end up skeptics or apostates.

Jim

*******************************************************

Needless to say, I've lost count of the number of times that you either misrepresent me
directly or you insinuate a misrepresentation. Here, for example, you insinuate that I /
Biblical Creationists "suppose" Genesis 1 to be a "technical text". You either do not
know what the heck you're talking about or you are lying --- there is no third alternative.

Genesis 1 is narrative text with a bit of figurative language -- that's what we say, no
more, no less. Certain people take literary liberties with that narrative text to make
it say what THEY wish for it to say. You should know, O-Mudd, you're one of them.

Jorge

I doubt you'll answer this, but I'd like to know... so I will ask... Specifically, which bits are figurative?

Originally posted by Jorge

*****************************************************************

You pathetic people can't even be original -- get your own material!!!

Jorge

Just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of your position Jorge.

Originally posted by Jorge

*****************************************************************

You pathetic people can't even be original -- get your own material!!!

Jorge

I gotta hand it to you jorge. I don't know if accusations of unoriginality (!!!!!!!) is the most original, or the most absurd, way to attempt to get away with special pleading, but it certainly is the most pathetic combination of both.


Keep up the good work!

I mean seriously, it's amazing:

"You guys all engage in faulty behavior X"

"Don't you engage in this behavior X yourself, jorge"?

"Hey! Don't steal my lines"!


...Where's a :facepalm: smiley when you need one?

Originally posted by Jorge

*******************************************************

Needless to say, I've lost count of the number of times that you either misrepresent me
directly or you insinuate a misrepresentation. Here, for example, you insinuate that I /
Biblical Creationists "suppose" Genesis 1 to be a "technical text". You either do not
know what the heck you're talking about or you are lying --- there is no third alternative.

Genesis 1 is narrative text with a bit of figurative language -- that's what we say, no
more, no less. Certain people take literary liberties with that narrative text to make
it say what THEY wish for it to say. You should know, O-Mudd, you're one of them.

Jorge

'a bit' of figurative language eh. And which 'bit' might that be Jorge? The 'day' bit, or the 'firmament separates the waters above and below 'bit'. Or perhaps something else?


Oh, and by the way Jorge, how do you decide which 'bit' is figurative? It wouldn't be related to whether or not a literal reading ends up in conflict with what is know by scientific means - would it?

I'll offer you the challenge once again Jorge. Show which 'bits' are figurative without resorting to any knowledge of nature gained after 1000BC, sola scriptura.

Not taking the challenge is tacit admission you can't do it.

Tacit admission you can't do it should tell you that you need to rethink your position, because if you can't do it then you are a hypocrite as you condemn those who disagree with you over what 'bits' are figurative per knowledge gained after 1000BC.

Your turn.


Jim

Originally posted by Jorge

*******************************************************

Needless to say, I've lost count of the number of times that you either misrepresent me
directly or you insinuate a misrepresentation. Here, for example, you insinuate that I /
Biblical Creationists "suppose" Genesis 1 to be a "technical text". You either do not
know what the heck you're talking about or you are lying --- there is no third alternative.

Genesis 1 is narrative text with a bit of figurative language -- that's what we say, no
more, no less. Certain people take literary liberties with that narrative text to make
it say what THEY wish for it to say. You should know, O-Mudd, you're one of them.

Jorge

"a bit of figurative language"? Excellent. Now you should be able to tell us exactly which bits are figurative and why.


Why do I feel I shouldn't hold my breath?

Originally posted by oxmixmudd

'a bit' of figurative language eh. And which 'bit' might that be Jorge? The 'day' bit, or the 'firmament separates the waters above and below 'bit'. Or perhaps something else?


Oh, and by the way Jorge, how do you decide which 'bit' is figurative? It wouldn't be related to whether or not a literal reading ends up in conflict with what is know by scientific means - would it?

I'll offer you the challenge once again Jorge. Show which 'bits' are figurative without resorting to any knowledge of nature gained after 1000BC, sola scriptura.

Not taking the challenge is tacit admission you can't do it.

Tacit admission you can't do it should tell you that you need to rethink your position, because if you can't do it then you are a hypocrite as you condemn those who disagree with you over what 'bits' are figurative per knowledge gained after 1000BC.

Your turn.

Jim

*********************************************************************************

Docpotato (a.k.a. Mr. Potato Head) beat you to it -- wanting to know about "figurative language".

First, you apparently keep forgetting that I have in essence given up on you. You are
untrainable in the sense that you either cannot grasp or willingly refuse to grasp the
basics that I've been trying to instruct you on for years. So why do you insist?

For instance, that 'day' means a literal day in Genesis 1 is beyond any reasonable
doubt (except, of course, to those that have presupposed that it means something
else). Hence, responding for the 30th time, 'day' is clearly not figurative in Genesis 1.

All it takes to arrive at this conclusion is the application of very basic, time-tested rules
for biblical interpretation. What you people do is dishonor those rules and make up
your own interpretations because, well, because you don't like what those rules lead to.
As certain people practice, "If you don't like what it says, change it !"

An example of a bit of 'figurative language' in Genesis 1 is Genesis 1:14

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day
from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

The "lights" were not just "lights" -- they were stars ... other 'suns'. Note that by
following basic exegetical rules all of that is made clear later (in verses 15 - 18).

Your 'challenge' has been met and exceeded. Now, don't bug me again until you acquire
at least a bit of humility and integrity regarding what you people do to Scripture (distort it!).

Jorge

Originally posted by Jorge

*********************************************************************************

Docpotato (a.k.a. Mr. Potato Head) beat you to it -- wanting to know about "figurative language".

First, you apparently keep forgetting that I have in essence given up on you. You are
untrainable in the sense that you either cannot grasp or willingly refuse to grasp the
basics that I've been trying to instruct you on for years. So why do you insist?

For instance, that 'day' means a literal day in Genesis 1 is beyond any reasonable
doubt (except, of course, to those that have presupposed that it means something
else). Hence, responding for the 30th time, 'day' is clearly not figurative in Genesis 1.

All it takes to arrive at this conclusion is the application of very basic, time-tested rules
for biblical interpretation. What you people do is dishonor those rules and make up
your own interpretations because, well, because you don't like what those rules lead to.
As certain people practice, "If you don't like what it says, change it !"

An example of a bit of 'figurative language' in Genesis 1 is Genesis 1:14

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day
from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

The "lights" were not just "lights" -- they were stars ... other 'suns'. Note that by
following basic exegetical rules all of that is made clear later (in verses 15 - 18).

Your 'challenge' has been met and exceeded. Now, don't bug me again until you acquire
at least a bit of humility and integrity regarding what you people do to Scripture (distort it!).

Jorge

Your pulling our legs Jorge?


Regards, Roland

Originally posted by Jorge

An example of a bit of 'figurative language' in Genesis 1 is Genesis 1:14

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day
from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

The "lights" were not just "lights" -- they were stars ... other 'suns'. Note that by
following basic exegetical rules all of that is made clear later (in verses 15 - 18).

Your 'challenge' has been met and exceeded. Now, don't bug me again until you acquire
at least a bit of humility and integrity regarding what you people do to Scripture (distort it!).

Jorge

It's rather fitting that you'd use an example that is in no way figurative, Jorge.

It doesn't matter whether or not stars are "just lights" . . . they are lights. They are light sources: just like a flashlight, a lamp and a candle are lights. So, assuming that the Hebrews thought that the moon was a genuine light source and not merely a reflective surface, this would be an example of something that is not meant to be figurative, as all those shining things really are lights.

The only possible figurative use would apply to the moon but, as far as I'm aware, the ancient Hebrews were not aware that the moon reflected light from the sun.

—Sam

Originally posted by Jorge

*********************************************************************************

Docpotato (a.k.a. Mr. Potato Head) beat you to it -- wanting to know about "figurative language".

First, you apparently keep forgetting that I have in essence given up on you. You are
untrainable in the sense that you either cannot grasp or willingly refuse to grasp the
basics that I've been trying to instruct you on for years. So why do you insist?

For instance, that 'day' means a literal day in Genesis 1 is beyond any reasonable
doubt (except, of course, to those that have presupposed that it means something
else). Hence, responding for the 30th time, 'day' is clearly not figurative in Genesis 1.

All it takes to arrive at this conclusion is the application of very basic, time-tested rules
for biblical interpretation. What you people do is dishonor those rules and make up
your own interpretations because, well, because you don't like what those rules lead to.
As certain people practice, "If you don't like what it says, change it !"

An example of a bit of 'figurative language' in Genesis 1 is Genesis 1:14

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day
from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

The "lights" were not just "lights" -- they were stars ... other 'suns'. Note that by
following basic exegetical rules all of that is made clear later (in verses 15 - 18).

Your 'challenge' has been met and exceeded. Now, don't bug me again until you acquire
at least a bit of humility and integrity regarding what you people do to Scripture (distort it!).

Jorge

Oh no Jorge, you did not even come close. As has been pointed out, those stars are lights. Not figurative at all. Just phenomenal (described as observed). You looked for a way to avoid the real part you think is figurative - Genesis 1:6-8 - and failed. Ooops. How do I know you think it is figurative? You said so yourself. It's archived here. Shall I look it up for you?

No Jorge, the 'bit' that is figurative is the firmament or expanse which divides the waters above from the waters below, and in which are the sun moon and stars.

Or do you take that literally, and have there be a firm dome expanse embedded with little shining lights and the sun and moon, with waters above that are 'literally' source waters for the flood in Genesis 7 ...

as was understood and even interpreted to reference the 'water vapor canopy' so widely accepted by YEC's of the '70's and early '80's as they tried to reconcile the obvious meaning of that text with something real in nature.

Nice try Jorge - but no cigar. Cut to the chase now and show Genesis 1:6-8 'figurative' using just the Biblical text, and w/o referencing knowledge gained post 1000BC.


Jim

Originally posted by Jorge

As for the above post by Mr. VS, it's really quite simple : ALL of those gentlemen will be at the Darwin Was Wrong Conference (now just one week away). Instead of blathering like a spoiled brat, why doesn't Mr. VS hop on over and challenge these men directly?

There's a carnival coming to town this weekend and if I'm going to see a freak show I'd rather spend my money locally.

Originally posted by Jorge

The same goes to those of you that like to take shots at these guys from far away (the typical MO of the Evo-Faithful). I mean, here's a fantastic opportunity for you guys. You have a bunch of your ideological enemies all grouped together - think of how you could embarrass the whole lot. Heck, you may even be able to end the Biblical Creationist movement in one fell swoop! Go for it, guys ... or at least shut up!

If the rest of the content is on par with your claims about racism, euthanasia and the Holocaust (which were shredded by numerous TWebbers in short order) then the cost to time ratio doesn't make showing up in person worth it. How about you just post some PRATTs here, we destroy them and call it even instead?

Originally posted by Jorge

BTW, I just learned that David Berlinski may also be there. That could be interesting ...

More evidence that words in sylvania don't mean the same thing they do in the real world.

Originally posted by Ansgar Seraph

It's rather fitting that you'd use an example that is in no way figurative, Jorge.

It doesn't matter whether or not stars are "just lights" . . . they are lights. They are light sources: just like a flashlight, a lamp and a candle are lights. So, assuming that the Hebrews thought that the moon was a genuine light source and not merely a reflective surface, this would be an example of something that is not meant to be figurative, as all those shining things really are lights.

The only possible figurative use would apply to the moon but, as far as I'm aware, the ancient Hebrews were not aware that the moon reflected light from the sun.

—Sam

******************************************************************

Did I not bold, italicized and underlined "a bit" ?

A brief lesson for you : 'figurative language' means, among other things, when a word
is used to represent something other than the actual object. Hence, "lights" is used
to represent 'stars'. True, stars 'are' "lights" but they're much more than just "lights".
That was my only point and, as it is a subtle use of figurative language, I said "a bit".
Compare that with, say, the parables or with certain verses in Revelation - not 'a bit'.

And let's not forget the 'biggie' here -- yom (day). That 'day' means a literal day in
Genesis 1-2 is far beyond any reasonable doubt (except, of course, to those that
have presupposed that it means something else). Hence, responding for the 31st
time, 'day' is clearly not figurative in Genesis 1-2. So why do you people not accept
that meaning of that word as GOD intended to communicate it to us? Could it be
because it clashes with your chosen, anti-scriptural beliefs?

Lesson over ... bill is in the mail. Adios ....


P.S. Instead of arguing over everything I say just for the sake of arguing, do try
harder to get the point, will ya. The same to the rest of you buffoons here.

Jorge

Originally posted by Jorge

A brief lesson for you : 'figurative language' means, among other things, when a word
is used to represent something other than the actual object. Hence, "lights" is used
to represent 'stars'. True, stars 'are' "lights" but they're much more than just "lights".

Now, now, Jorge, you are using modern science to distort the plain meaning of Genesis 1. And that is very naughty

- FreezBee

Originally posted by FreezBee

Now, now, Jorge, you are using modern science to distort the plain meaning of Genesis 1. And that is very naughty

- FreezBee

******************************************************

You're one of those "buffoons" that I had referred to.

No, it is not "very naughty" because I am NOT using modern science to "distort" the plain
meaning of Genesis 1. To ancient people, AS WELL AS TO US, stars appear as "lights"
in the firmament. Where, then, is the 'distortion'?

Compare that with 'day' which meant 'day' then AS WELL AS NOW except for the "learned,
enlightened people" : "No, it's not actually a 'day' ... it's actually billions of years!"

You really need to try much harder, FreezBee.

Got'ta go ... next stop : Springfield, Oregon.

Jorge

Originally posted by Jorge

******************************************************************

Did I not bold, italicized and underlined "a bit" ?

A brief lesson for you : 'figurative language' means, among other things, when a word
is used to represent something other than the actual object. Hence, "lights" is used
to represent 'stars'. True, stars 'are' "lights" but they're much more than just "lights".
That was my only point and, as it is a subtle use of figurative language, I said "a bit".
Compare that with, say, the parables or with certain verses in Revelation - not 'a bit'.

And let's not forget the 'biggie' here -- yom (day). That 'day' means a literal day in
Genesis 1-2 is far beyond any reasonable doubt (except, of course, to those that
have presupposed that it means something else). Hence, responding for the 31st
time, 'day' is clearly not figurative in Genesis 1-2. So why do you people not accept
that meaning of that word as GOD intended to communicate it to us? Could it be
because it clashes with your chosen, anti-scriptural beliefs?

Lesson over ... bill is in the mail. Adios ....


P.S. Instead of arguing over everything I say just for the sake of arguing, do try
harder to get the point, will ya. The same to the rest of you buffoons here.

Jorge

ah - jorge just keeps trying to wiggle out of the issue.

consider:

Jorge when confronted with the figurative or literal meaning of Genesis 1:6-8 generally avoids giving clear answers on the subject. However, here we see

Originally posted by Jorge

Originally posted by oxmixmudd

The real big, glaring clue that God left that the account shouldn’t be taken too literally is right there in the depiction of the firmament (Genesis 1:6-8, 14-18) where we are told that the Earth is surrounded by a solid structure in which the Sun, Moon and stars are set. I think if this were the case we would have run into it during the Apollo moon-landings. No, clearly this is not the case and should be seen as an indication that maybe, just maybe, the surrounding texts should be looked at in a similar way.

You aren't seriously saying that it's not possible to have figurative language 'sandwiched' between literal language, are you?

Where he tacitly accepts the language is not literal, and asks why it would be a problem for it to be figurative and the remainder to be literal. Of course the whole deal is not that some of the text can't be figurative and some of it literal. The big question is ‘how do you know this if figurative and the rest literal’. A question Jorge will not directly answer, because he knows if he does the answer will expose the flaws in his reasoning for rejecting a figurative reading of 'day'.

Now Jorge could claim he didn't 'say' this text was figurative, but only asked why some of the text couldn't be figurative and other parts literal. However, when asked to justify how he could tell the difference between figurative and literal with the above referenced as a source in post 172:

Originally posted by JORGE

Originally posted by steviepinhead

No one has said that, Jorge. In fact, quite the opposite. What we're wondering is how you -- and you alone -- are able to accurately tell one from the other? What's your foolproof litmus test for literal or figurative language, Jorge?

I'm not about to give you a free lesson on biblical interpretation. Anyone even mildly versed on the subject knows the general guidelines.

Notice, again - no denial of Gen 1:6-8 as figurative, just a smart a-- response to avoid giving a reason to support his conclusion it is figurative.

So Jorge, again, how do you know Genesis 1:6-8 is figurative (not literally a separator to divide the waters and in which are the sun,moon, and stars as the text says – you do realize there is no literal rendering of something that is dividing waters above and waters below and in which are star, moon, and sun that matches what actually IS don’t you?)


Jim