h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

first of all, all scripiture isnt inspired by god, thats only one of the many versions of the bible. others say different things. secondly, evolution and creationism do conflict. the bible thinks that the earth hasnt been around for long enough for any real evolution to occur. third of all, the bible doesnt say,
"this isnt litteral, just kind of interpret." that sort of thinking wasnt around untill recently when there was something proven to colflict with it. fourth of all, while you are a good writer, you leave out many things, like what is mentioned before.

Hello, thanks for the response to this entry.

"first of all, all scripiture isnt inspired by god"
Uhm, strangely enough, that is probably the *only* thing that every single Christian sect would agree on; that the bible is inspired by God. Why would you say that it isn't?

"evolution and creationism do conflict. the bible thinks that the earth hasnt been around for long enough for any real evolution to occur"
That's just *one single* interpretation of the bible, the literal one (that denies that it is interpreting, pesky fundamentalists). And one that can be proven to be fallacious, as this entry describes.

"third of all, the bible doesnt say, 'this isnt litteral, just kind of interpret.' that sort of thinking wasnt around untill recently when there was something proven to colflict with it."
That's what the whole point of this entry is to discuss. The bible equally doesn't say "This is literal". In the absence of either, it is wise to choose to view the bible through the eyes of the original cultures and societies that wrote the bible. Also, as the entry rightly says:

"Language is used univocally or analogically. Univocal means having one single 'voice' or meaning. Analogical is a meaning that is similar and related but not the same. For example 'an apple is healthy' or 'I am healthy'. All language is an approximation of reality; analogical language is by intent an approximation not a description.

"Becasue we do not see God, all 'God language', including biblical language, must be symbolic and analogical."

"while you are a good writer, you leave out many things, like what is mentioned before."
All of the above are ,in fact, covered in the article. Perhaps a more thorough re-reading is in order.

All the best,

Ste

Researcher 204207, I don't know if you're still around now, but I'd like to point out that:
<<"this isnt litteral, just kind of interpret." that sort of thinking wasnt around untill recently when there was something proven to colflict with it>>
That statement is inaccurate. That "sort of thinking" was around in the 3rd century! Origen wrote about it. But non-literal interpretation does go back a long way!