3 ms·
Isn't that a circular argument? My implicit claim is that the information in Genesis is coming from a superior source who would know, but you are saying that G
by prmph 5y ago
Isn't that a circular argument?
My implicit claim is that the information in Genesis is coming from a superior source who would know, but you are saying that Genesis cannot be accurate because those who wrote it could not know what was scientifically accurate.
The writers of the Bible books generally claimed that the information they wrote down was inspired.
- munk-a 5y agoI think that's a logical trap - it implies that the contents of the bible are a direct transcription from a being with superior (or, in it's word, perfect) knowledge. If that's the case then mortal interpretation of the bible can understood to have been historically flawed until... well, until when? Can we understand it in a truthful manner now or are we still too imperfect beings to comprehend its actual truth? And, if we're failing to understand it properly are we doing so for good or ill - we know that some of the previous flawed interpretations were pretty awful. Declaring crusades and wars in the name of the Bible is an abhorrent interpretation to most modern christians - so how are we to know how correct our interpretations are?
- goto11 5y agoPretty badly inspired then, if they thought plants and trees were created before the sun and stars. Just goes to show that people and books which claim to be divinely inspired tend not to be very reliable.