Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: doc30; presently no screen name
"A literal interpretation of Genesis is fundamentally inconsistent with the last centurey years of science."

First, only a fool tests God's word against man's highly falible 'science.'

Second, most of Genesis calls for a literal interpretation due to it's highly selective wording.

Third, there is nothing about a literal interpretation of Genesis that is at odds with real science (i.e. remove the propaganda from the science and there is agreement). The assumed great age of the cosmos is a refutation of our best scientific knowledge. Einstein's General Relativity removed the reason for assuming great age by explaning the dilation of time that takes place when space is expanded (all current scientific models conclude that space has expanded).

233 posted on 06/15/2007 3:57:31 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies ]


To: editor-surveyor
there is nothing about a literal interpretation of Genesis that is at odds with real science...

There is a lack of scientific evidence for a global flood at about 4350 years ago.

234 posted on 06/15/2007 4:09:50 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies ]

To: editor-surveyor
First, only a fool tests God's word against man's highly falible 'science.'

First of all, it is called God's Word by man, who is admittedly fallen. It is inspired by God, but it had to pass through man. That's why a litral reading is superficial. It's for sheep who fear to think for themselves.

So you are also declaring what is plain evidence flawed? You are calling God a fraud? That's what we see in His Creation. Look for yourself. You have not because you know looking at the real, physical world will shatter your conception of Faith. You can't handle the Truth. Second, most of Genesis calls for a literal interpretation due to it's highly selective wording.

Genesis calls for no such thing! I see nothing like that in the Bible. You claim it is literal. but there is nothing there that says it is. Like I said before, only those of shallow faith rely on an interpretation that is literal in nature. You seem to be the type of so called Christian who must shout with his ears and eyes closed in case your literal interpretation has any inconsistencies or contradictions.

And your comments abour Einstein and relativity show you do not know what you are talking about. Another example of someone so enraptured by a literal Biblical reading that they must warp and twist things to fit their preconceptions. If you want to spout Einstein, do it the right way. Post the equastions that show relativity supports an Earth about 6-10K years old. Even though there is tons of phyical evidence that it is much, much older. If you want to dismiss that evidence, then you are calling God a liar and you are not an agent of the Lord.

238 posted on 06/15/2007 8:08:21 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson