From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 16/03/2025 4:11 pm, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 11:03:06 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 15/03/2025 4:30 am, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 14/03/2025 6:52 pm, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> [snip for focus]   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Name one mainstream denomination that teaches that 'speaking into   
   >>>>>>>>> life' should be taken literally and evolution dismissed.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> As I've said before, members of various denominations subscribe to a   
   >>>>>>>> range of interpretations of the biblical account, ALL of which involve   
   >>>>>>>> God creating, i.e. "speaking into existence":   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Do any of the mainstream denominations take "speaking into existence"   
   >>>>>>> literally as you do?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> 1. TE (front-loaded)	God speaks into initial conditions   
   >>>>>>>> 2. TE (Martin Harran)	God speaks ???   
   >>>>>>>> 3. TE (guided)		God speaks into being gradually   
   >>>>>>>> 4. Progressive Creation	God speaks into being progressively   
   >>>>>>>> 5. OEC/YEC/ID		God speaks into being directly/other   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> "And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let   
   birds   
   >>>>>>>> fly above the earth across the vault of the sky." So God created the   
   >>>>>>>> great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water   
   >>>>>>>> teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every   
   >>>>>>>> winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."   
   >>>>>>>> (Genesis 1:20-21)   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> So you are a Bible literalist. I'm glad we got that much clarified.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> How did you get "Bible literalist" from my list of mostly non-literal   
   >>>>>> interpretations of Genesis 1?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Talking about God speaking things into life and quoting Genesis to   
   >>>>> back it up is a pretty strong clue.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of   
   >>>> Genesis, not the quoting of it. Your response indicates that you know   
   >>>> this, but attempted to slide past it to your real agenda, at the expense   
   >>>> of correctness and honesty.   
   >>>   
   >>> If anyone is guilty of a lack of honesty here, it is you and your   
   >>> continuous evasion.   
   >>>   
   >>> You made no attempt to provide any interpretation of the Bible passage   
   >>> you quoted. You gave a list if the ways you think that *other people*   
   >>> might interpret Genesis but none of those qualify as literal - they   
   >>> can't because interpretation is the opposite of literal - and you   
   >>> don't even give any indication which of them (if any) applies to   
   >>> yourself. I have asked you several times whether you think humans have   
   >>> evolved or were created as a stand-alone species and you have made no   
   >>> attempt to answer. I've asked you if you accept your "intelligent   
   >>> designer" has created some really bad things, some really inefficient   
   >>> things and some precarious things. Again, you have made no attempt to   
   >>> answer. Even in your response to my post above about you being a Bible   
   >>> literalist, it's notable that you neither admit nor deny my claim, you   
   >>> just whine about me making it.   
   >>   
   >> The conversation has not been about my personal position. Most recently   
   >> it was in relation to your question: 'Do any of the mainstream   
   >> denominations take "speaking into existence" literally as you do?'"   
   >>   
   >> My appropriately general response was to your general question.   
   >>   
   >> You then misapplied my response, making a logically fallacious leap to   
   >> press your agenda, which is (it seems) to accuse me of being a biblical   
   >> literalist, which you have assumed to be the case. Your doing this, and   
   >> your unwillingness to admit as much, damages trust and derails discussion.   
   >>   
   >> And ironically, for the record, I'm not a biblical literalist in the   
   >> sense that I assume you mean,   
   >   
   > So why quote from Genesis without offering any interpretation?   
   >   
   >> i.e. holding to a YEC interpretation of   
   >> Genesis? I believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God. But the   
   >> world and universe appear to me to be older than 10,000 years.   
   >   
   > I've never really 'got' this YEC vs OEC thing. If you accept that the   
   > days in Genesis are not literally 24 hour days, why stop there, why   
   > take that part as figurative but insist that the rest of it should be   
   > read literally? Whilst I totally reject the YEC approach, I recognise   
   > that at least they are consistent in how  they read the Bible.   
      
   Yes, that's a valid question. In fact, the YEC position often refers to   
   it as slippery slope into a non-literal reading of the whole Bible. In   
   practice this doesn't follow, but I get the concern.   
      
   Perhaps it's not a question of a literal vs non-literal approach to the   
   Bible generally, but a question of which literary genre to categorise   
   the early chapters of Genesis as.   
      
   >   
   >> I've   
   >> stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon and thought it difficult to   
   >> conceive of a natural process that could carve it out in only thousands   
   >> of years.   
   >   
   > You really should read Francis Collins book 'The Language of God'; he   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)