To: GodGunsGuts
So.. tell us all if you also believe that a seven headed beast with 10 horns will rise from the ocean to destroy the earth... It is ‘literal’ after all.... isn’t it?
5 posted on
12/03/2009 9:00:37 AM PST by
xcamel
(The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
To: xcamel
So.. tell us all if you also believe that a seven headed beast with 10 horns will rise from the ocean to destroy the earth... It is literal after all.... isnt it?I really don't have a dog in this fight but your argument is a strawman. Proponents of the particular views on the Genesis account (24-hour-days vs. epochs) would insist that they are reading Scripture naturally (as it was intended to be read) as opposed to literally. The dispute comes down to what Moses meant by "days" in the Genesis account. Both sides would recognize that the seven-headed beast with 10 horns is figurative language.
To: xcamel; GodGunsGuts
Only to someone who has no reading comprehension, like you.
35 posted on
12/03/2009 10:09:20 AM PST by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: xcamel
No language and hence no writings in that language, are always, unrelentingly, literal. That includes Hebrew, the koine Greek and English.
How to tell what should be taken as figurative in whole or in part? First would be familiarity with the author's purpose in writing and style and then the context of the particular statement.
But no creationist of any persuasion has ever claimed that every single word of the Scriptures must be read in a totally, without exception, literal way. So why would they take this vision of John's as such?
75 posted on
12/03/2009 11:12:49 AM PST by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson