3 ms·

Easily. It's the same story from two different perspectives. The first chapter is on a more global level. The second zooms in and focuses specifically on how

Easily. It's the same story from two different perspectives. The first chapter is on a more global level. The second zooms in and focuses specifically on how man was created. The animals were created globally first. Once Adam was created, God created animals again so Adam could see the process, understand that God is Creator, and participate in ruling over God's creation. Interesting website choice. I spent a year as an agnostic because of that website before I started to realize there must be another perspective to consider.

rjbwork 5y ago
Okay. So you don't believe that the bible is utterly true. You believe that the bible, plus some supplementary explanatory material is utterly true.
- rsyring 5y ago
  I certainly believe interpretation is necessary and that some interpretations are more faithful than others. I believe there are resources out there that can help someone to faithfully interpret. And the converse also. The skeptics annotated Bible being in the latter category IMO.
  - fenomas 5y ago
    To a disinterested outsider, this dialog reads like: A: everything in this book is literally true B: what about this passage where it says 3+4=9? A: my interpretation of that passage is that the 9 represents a 7 in that particular context The salient point being: that even if A has arrived at a literally true interpretation of the passage, the truth came from A, not from the passage. Further, although A believes they're arguing that the book is inerrant, what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant.
    - no-dr-onboard 5y ago
      > the truth came from A, not from the passage How can an interpretation attesting the truth of two passages exist while the passages are individually untrue? There seems to be a logic error here. > what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant. I don’t think A is claiming that, as the most basic understanding of Christianity understands that the individual is terribly flawed and errant. If your presupposition for this conclusion is based on your earlier point might have either misstated something or you’re claiming a conclusion without an expressed premise.

rjbwork 5y ago

Okay. So you don't believe that the bible is utterly true. You believe that the bible, plus some supplementary explanatory material is utterly true.

rsyring 5y ago
I certainly believe interpretation is necessary and that some interpretations are more faithful than others. I believe there are resources out there that can help someone to faithfully interpret. And the converse also. The skeptics annotated Bible being in the latter category IMO.
- fenomas 5y ago
  To a disinterested outsider, this dialog reads like: A: everything in this book is literally true B: what about this passage where it says 3+4=9? A: my interpretation of that passage is that the 9 represents a 7 in that particular context The salient point being: that even if A has arrived at a literally true interpretation of the passage, the truth came from A, not from the passage. Further, although A believes they're arguing that the book is inerrant, what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant.
  - no-dr-onboard 5y ago
    > the truth came from A, not from the passage How can an interpretation attesting the truth of two passages exist while the passages are individually untrue? There seems to be a logic error here. > what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant. I don’t think A is claiming that, as the most basic understanding of Christianity understands that the individual is terribly flawed and errant. If your presupposition for this conclusion is based on your earlier point might have either misstated something or you’re claiming a conclusion without an expressed premise.