Evolution & Creation Part 19: Genesis vs Ancient Near Eastern Myths || Defenders LIVE!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- Defenders LIVE! // Evolution & Creation Part 19: The Plasticity and Flexibility of Ancient Near Eastern Myths //
We've been thinking about the question: Are myths to be understood literally to be true? In our examination of anthropological data we saw that there are three factors or properties of myth that contribute to the view that they are not to be interpreted literalistically...
Youre a legend and I love your work the only thing we disagree on is the Evolution thing... I'd love to learn more.
If you think you can debunk God and His Timeline from God, you are totally fooling yourself.
his logic;
there are metaphore in scripture, therefore all scripture is metaphore
Not really
That's literally the opposite of what he argues
@ its thr basis of his whole series, its in every one of his videos…dont take scripture literally, its a allogory of a natural mechanism. thats his claim
@estimatingonediscoveringthree you are making a sweeping statement like he believes all scripture is allegorical. You are either lying, or misinformed. Hopefully the latter. He never claims genesis is allegorical, he believes there was a literal Adam, literal garden literal flood. He is very clear about this. His stance on interpreting some passages with more figurative language is the same rationale that we use to translate the psalms or revelations as having figurative elements. This is not a controversial interpretation, MOST Christians throughout all history have held similar views.
@ what scripture does he choose to interperate literally? and why? he is arbitrarily creating allegory out of clear statements.
One should definitely be humble about such ancient texts, plenty of time has passed, so it's hard to get the details right.
A lot of this is abductive. Inference to the best explanation. No certain certainty (which you seem to agree with that).
# not a christian
That's a pretty tall claim. Have evidence?
@@jonathanh954 anyone who denys scripture and replaces it with natural means is a naturalist.
@@estimatingonediscoveringthreeno one is doing that here troll somewhere else
@@estimatingonediscoveringthree The Catholic church endorses this view. Would you call the Catholics, the majority of Christians, non-Christians then? Many Christians throughout church history have thought it was figurative such as St. Augustine and Origen. Furthermore, this view makes much more sense of both trees. Taking the figurative view it is merely describing the free will God lovingly gave them and the choice of Adam and Eve's to sin. I think it does an effective job of such. If you take it literally God is sort of an ***hole who put the tree there knowingly and in a sense tricking them by putting the trees there. He could have just not put the trees there. Of course, His ways are higher than ours, but taking the figurative view avoids this. Craig has given many reasons for taking the figurative view. I think if someone comes with an open mind reading the text it is somewhat obvious that it is figuratively and beautifully describing important theological truths through the days of creation and the garden of Eden. Jesus loves you. God bless.
@ most definitly, the catholic church is totally pagan, every Christian knows this. any entity appealing to naturalsim and worshiping multiple dieties is by definition pagan. and contrary to scripture. thank you for making my point