Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Coug
The original question in another thread was about which things in the Bible are to be taken literally or figuratively. I and/or Tex were accused of taking the OT too literally. A question was asked when to tell whether or not something was literal or figurative in the OT.
I put forth the example of the "6 days" as something that was clearly figurative. Some have tried to interpret the "6 days" as the literal timeframe in which God created the earth and the heavens. I pointed out that was clearly false and that an obvious translation error was the source of the misunderstanding. I did not attempt to extend this 'translation error approach' to anything else dealing with the creation story and its literalism/symbolism.
I really have a hard time figuring out why or where you're taking issue with this.
|
You argued that viewing the genesis account figuratively vs. literally was a "meaningless argument" because the expression "six days" was due to a "translation error". You clearly implied that the basic creation account was literal except for a few details lost in translation. Otherwise your "meaningless argument" comment makes no sense. If you are now admitting that the genesis account is allegorical, please explain to me how it is a meaningless argument in the context of yesterday's debate.