| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Mark Johnson" |
| Date: |
24 Jun 2003 06:02:11 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Evolution is the observation |
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote
in <2818fvsk8gdh73d2l98oo4kfaasofmuglm@4ax.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote
in <gsk7fvce6gcq2th211eh772g29gih3hdov@4ax.com>:
Matt Silberstein <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
So how about a story about a man, made from dirt, called Dirt?
From the dust of the ground? Why not Adam? the first human being.
That's the name people have always used, isn't it?
What does that name mean?
It could. Or earth. But I think Adam, apart from being the proper
name, is generally taken to mean - man, or mankind (or reddish color
of the earth). Right?
If you mean that it is clearly an allegorical name, yes.
That's how Scriptures is - overloaded meanings. There are various
meanings for the proper name, Adam.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is the observation |
24 Jun 2003 10:28:21 PM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote
in <h3mhfvoc9n7kq32c2sd1rns8dc90viuifj@4ax.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote
in <2818fvsk8gdh73d2l98oo4kfaasofmuglm@4ax.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote
in <gsk7fvce6gcq2th211eh772g29gih3hdov@4ax.com>:
Matt Silberstein <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
So how about a story about a man, made from dirt, called Dirt?
From the dust of the ground? Why not Adam? the first human being.
That's the name people have always used, isn't it?
What does that name mean?
It could. Or earth. But I think Adam, apart from being the proper
name, is generally taken to mean - man, or mankind (or reddish color
of the earth). Right?
If you mean that it is clearly an allegorical name, yes.
That's how Scriptures is - overloaded meanings. There are various
meanings for the proper name, Adam.
Really? Are you sure you aren't creating an overloaded meaning because
the basic meaning implies too powerfully that the story is a
metaphorical story and you don't like that? Can you show me any other
time that this word is overloaded (except in relation to the character
known as Made of Dirt)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is the observation |
25 Jun 2003 06:10:30 AM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote
in <h3mhfvoc9n7kq32c2sd1rns8dc90viuifj@4ax.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote
in <2818fvsk8gdh73d2l98oo4kfaasofmuglm@4ax.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote
in <gsk7fvce6gcq2th211eh772g29gih3hdov@4ax.com>:
Matt Silberstein <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What does that name mean?
It could. Or earth. But I think Adam, apart from being the proper
name, is generally taken to mean - man, or mankind (or reddish color
of the earth). Right?
If you mean that it is clearly an allegorical name, yes.
That's how Scriptures is - overloaded meanings. There are various
meanings for the proper name, Adam.
Really? Are you sure you aren't creating an overloaded meaning because
the basic meaning implies too powerfully that the story is a
metaphorical story and you don't like that?
Maybe we could agree, then, on the sense of the word. But if by
metaphor you mean that there are object lessons, then of course you
find that in Genesis. But that doesn't demand it wasn't also a actual
'illustration', an historical event. Even events which are historical
fact, but are not inspired, do not refer to the creation of people by
God, can carry a 'moral', or other meanings. It can be both - and more
- particularly when you're talking about Holy Scriptures. And while
others might understand, I'm quite sure this has zoomed right past the
buzzcut, in your case.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is the observation |
25 Jun 2003 07:28:29 AM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote
in <jh0jfvsore1test87qqbkrqqh6kap02fmu@4ax.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
....
Really? Are you sure you aren't creating an overloaded meaning because
the basic meaning implies too powerfully that the story is a
metaphorical story and you don't like that?
Maybe we could agree, then, on the sense of the word. But if by
metaphor you mean that there are object lessons, then of course you
find that in Genesis. But that doesn't demand it wasn't also a actual
'illustration', an historical event.
True, it is the physical evidence found outside the Bible proves that
these stories were not historical events.
Even events which are historical
fact, but are not inspired, do not refer to the creation of people by
God, can carry a 'moral', or other meanings. It can be both - and more
- particularly when you're talking about Holy Scriptures. And while
others might understand, I'm quite sure this has zoomed right past the
buzzcut, in your case.
All I noticed is your total lack of evidence to support the contention
that we should treat it as historical.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
