5 ms·

There is a distinction between 'what Christians believe' and 'what the Bible claims'. The creation narrative in Genesis: either "the Bible is sacred and wholly

by lgvln 3y ago

There is a distinction between 'what Christians believe' and 'what the Bible claims'. The creation narrative in Genesis: either "the Bible is sacred and wholly true/correct" OR "the theory of evolution is true/correct". If the Bible can be wrong about the nature of the universe (as the Church was wrong about heliocentricism during Galileo's time), then surely it can be wrong about any number of issues.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
I wouldn't call Genesis "wrong", I'd just call it "describing things from a different perspective". Genesis does not purport to be a science textbook, or a 21st-century historical narrative. If you choose to remain ignorant of that perspective and the literary devices used by the divinely inspired author of Genesis, then I'm afraid you're missing out.
- lgvln 3y ago
  This is what I am getting: it is simply a "matter of perspective"; despite the Bible getting the age of the planet comically wrong (~10,000 years vs ~4,500,000,000 years) , that the life did not progress as claimed (on day 5, God created the birds and sea animals; on day 6, the land animals and humans; which would mean the dinosaurs and humans roamed the planet concurrently, among other absurdities), in a way which is at complete odds with the fields of biology, anthropology, geography, physics etc - the conclusion one should hold is: Genesis is "not wrong".
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    Correct, yes, because you are wrong in trying to calculate those so-called facts based on your naïve reading of Genesis. As I said, not a science text, not a history report. If you can't interpret Sacred Scripture properly, then of course you will come to absurd conclusions.
    - lgvln 3y ago
      Consider me ignorant, how would you "interpret" the narrative in a way that is compatible with modern science?
      - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
        That's not a goal of interpretation. You don't start by saying "let me make this compatible with 'modern science', whatever that is." Its chief literary genre is allegory, if that helps.
      - lgvln 3y ago
        > That's not a goal of interpretation. You don't start by saying "let me make this compatible with 'modern science', whatever that is." Its chief literary genre is allegory, if that helps. Perfect. To summarise: the genesis creation narrative can never be wrong. It is an allegorical narrative with no factual value. Despite having no factual value, one can be mistaken about it. The burden of proof lies not with the claimant but the dissenter, if they can overcome their "false perspective", ignorance or naivety that is.
        NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
        > allegorical narrative with no factual value I wrote that your so-called facts have no value in regards to Genesis. Genesis is quite factual--that's why it can never be wrong.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 3y ago
> If the Bible can be wrong about the nature of the universe (as the Church was wrong about heliocentricism during Galileo's time), then surely it can be wrong about any number of issues. “The Bible can be wrong about any number of issues, just not, when understood properly, about faith and morals” is a not-uncommon Christian position. That it is simple, self-contained, ibtended literally, and correct on every factual detail is... a rather novel opinion.
- lgvln 3y ago
  The amount of cognitive dissonance required to maintain the beliefs 'the Bible can be mistaken about many issues' and 'it is never mistaken on issues pertaining to faith and morality' never ceases to amaze. > a rather novel opinion It's remarkable how one can evade the inherent contradictions in their position while appearing quite righteous about it. "I never said the Bible is wholly true (and I will not address its inherent contradictions) so the joke's on you!"

by lgvln 3y ago

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

I wouldn't call Genesis "wrong", I'd just call it "describing things from a different perspective". Genesis does not purport to be a science textbook, or a 21st-century historical narrative. If you choose to remain ignorant of that perspective and the literary devices used by the divinely inspired author of Genesis, then I'm afraid you're missing out.

lgvln 3y ago
This is what I am getting: it is simply a "matter of perspective"; despite the Bible getting the age of the planet comically wrong (~10,000 years vs ~4,500,000,000 years) , that the life did not progress as claimed (on day 5, God created the birds and sea animals; on day 6, the land animals and humans; which would mean the dinosaurs and humans roamed the planet concurrently, among other absurdities), in a way which is at complete odds with the fields of biology, anthropology, geography, physics etc - the conclusion one should hold is: Genesis is "not wrong".
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  Correct, yes, because you are wrong in trying to calculate those so-called facts based on your naïve reading of Genesis. As I said, not a science text, not a history report. If you can't interpret Sacred Scripture properly, then of course you will come to absurd conclusions.
  - lgvln 3y ago
    Consider me ignorant, how would you "interpret" the narrative in a way that is compatible with modern science?
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      That's not a goal of interpretation. You don't start by saying "let me make this compatible with 'modern science', whatever that is." Its chief literary genre is allegory, if that helps.
    - lgvln 3y ago
      > That's not a goal of interpretation. You don't start by saying "let me make this compatible with 'modern science', whatever that is." Its chief literary genre is allegory, if that helps. Perfect. To summarise: the genesis creation narrative can never be wrong. It is an allegorical narrative with no factual value. Despite having no factual value, one can be mistaken about it. The burden of proof lies not with the claimant but the dissenter, if they can overcome their "false perspective", ignorance or naivety that is.
      - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
        > allegorical narrative with no factual value I wrote that your so-called facts have no value in regards to Genesis. Genesis is quite factual--that's why it can never be wrong.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 3y ago

> If the Bible can be wrong about the nature of the universe (as the Church was wrong about heliocentricism during Galileo's time), then surely it can be wrong about any number of issues. “The Bible can be wrong about any number of issues, just not, when understood properly, about faith and morals” is a not-uncommon Christian position. That it is simple, self-contained, ibtended literally, and correct on every factual detail is... a rather novel opinion.

lgvln 3y ago
The amount of cognitive dissonance required to maintain the beliefs 'the Bible can be mistaken about many issues' and 'it is never mistaken on issues pertaining to faith and morality' never ceases to amaze. > a rather novel opinion It's remarkable how one can evade the inherent contradictions in their position while appearing quite righteous about it. "I never said the Bible is wholly true (and I will not address its inherent contradictions) so the joke's on you!"