[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Not a straw man if I leave the term “literal” open to other possible meanings.”

Which you didn’t do UNTIL AFTER you had put forward the straw man. Too late.

“I’m not reducing “literal” to only this one meaning,...”

You said that a literal view of Genesis would be the same as viewing it as science or history. How is that NOT reducing it to one meaning?

Again, I’m not attacking you, but I think you need to be more careful with how you word things.

[bdeaner]

From the beginning of the thread, I was using the term "literal" to mean a scientific or historical reading of Genesis. You came along and criticized this position. I clarified what I meant by "literal" as a way to avoid allowing you to reduce my argument to a straw man (not assuming you were doing so intentionally). At the same time, I was generous and left the meaning of literal open to interpretation, as I was not sure how you were using the term. Then you turned around and said I was mounting a straw man argument. On the contrary, I was attempting to avoid a battle of straw men. I am not interested in fighting a straw man, ok? That was the whole point of clearly define my terms, precisely to avoid boxing your position into a straw man -- why would I want to do that if I am sincerely interested in what you have to say? And I am. And I do not assume you are interested in mounting a straw man either -- unlike a lot of the Protestants who seem to make it their business to create straw man at the drop of a hat. So let's move on without the presumption of anyone intentionally mounting fallacious arguments and stick as best we can to rigorous logical procedure, as best as we can.