Quote:
Originally posted by FireFly@Aug 31 2005, 02:29 PM
I'm a Christian, and I believe in both. I don't believe in the big bang theory, and I have my own 'explaination' for why the world looks the way it does, without it taking 60 Billion years to make it look that way. (Or however long evolutionists say it took to make the earth look that way.)
A literal interpretation of the Bible is going overboard. There are some things that 'should' be taken literally by those who believe in it, and others, like the story of creation, should be taken as rough approximations.
If you want to get technical, a creationist 'should' believe that the Earth is about 14000 years old. 7000 years for creation, (one per 'day' in the Bible,) and 7000 years for destruction, which we should be nearing the Revelation shortly.
Here's a question for you all who don't believe:
Should the events depicted in the Book of Revelation actually occur, would you then believe?
|
so what you are saying Firefly is that as a Christian you only have to believe in "parts" of the bible?
You get to pick and choose which verses to read literally and dismiss the rest as allegory or metaphor, without any consistent system for deciding between the two?
That makes sense why Christians are so easily led then doesnt it? IF only pieces of your supposed bible need to be adhered too...and dependant on who interprets them?
If some verses are to be taken literally...and some poetically?<sic> or metaphorically, is that not hypocritical?