The Religion of Evolution

[The Galatian]

Matt:
That was amazing. I'm cutting that, and pasting it into Word to read carefully when I have more time. I wish I had your grace and ease with English, and your ability to clarify difficult ideas.

 

[BobRyan]

Matt --
"A look first at a favourite diversion - whether the term 'Yom' refers to a 24 hour period. This term is the one used for 'Day' in Genesis 1, and much debate about how this narrative should be viewed revolves around whether it has to mean a 24 hour period or not.

I think that this is a collosal red herring, and will not be revisiting that debate here.

A head-in-sand approach to a point that you "need" that you need-to-prove and that you merely-assume instead of establishing objectively- is not a compelling form of persuasion.

However - it seems that shallow "proof by assumption" has satisfied your intellectual interest - so I suppose you can relax and move past that point.

Matt -
Why? Firstly, because if Yom means a literal 24 hours it makes not the slightest bit of difference to how I view this narrative. The days may well be literal (and I strongly suspect they are) within the mythology of the narrative, just as the Ring is a literal Ring within Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. To put it another way, it is the narrative that is figurative, not the elements within it.

Again "assuming" that the ACCOUNT of the creation event is "mythology" is your approach while you also "assume" that the myths of evilutionism are "accounts" are "fact". Assuming that non-science of evolutionisms mythology to be "Fact" or even "observable fact" merely shows the extent to which evolutionists are willing to corrupt the scientific method to pursue their religious convictions.

Matt --
Secondly, because it doesn't actually make the narrative any more scientifically credible to say the days are millions of years long. The order is all wrong; there were flying things long before there were fishes, for example.

Here you "almost make a point".

Fish and birds were created on the "same day" according to the "Account". What you needed to say was "in our mythology there were fish Long before there were birds but in the Bible account they both come about in the same age - the same day". But if you had been thinking you could easily have noted "in the Bible account the Sun is created and placed in the sky the day AFTER the plants are created. This is impossible from a humanistic-naturalistic religious perspective and making the day last for ages - only exacerbates the problem".

In other words - those Christians who choose to corrupt the text of Genesis - make the day an undefined period of ages - do nothing to satisfied humanism nor do they solve the problems for our scientists today who can create neither Sun nor moon nor earth nor single-cell. And it certainly does not fit any chronology supposed by the mythologies of evolutionism.

Matt --
So that just wraps it up for 'Yom'."

Far from it. You would need to "start with exegesis" to even BEGIN to understand the term "Yom" as used in Genesis and summarized by God in Exodus 20:8-11

Matt --
Helen and Bob - you may think other Christians not taking the Bible literally is their problem, but I used to be a literalist, and it gradually became a colossal problem for me.

The "colossal problem" you have already had in your post - is that you fail to value scripture, or objective methods of reading it - you know - exegesis. How in the world can you expect christians to trash the text as "the new objective exegetical method"?

Matt I've found it a lot easier to take the Bible seriously since abandoning (it)

my relationship with Jesus has deepened as a consequence.

Jesus IS the "Word" that really Was IN THE BEGINNING.

You start by "denying" the Word of God regarding the "Beginning" and declare that this has increased your appreatiation of "the Word" made flesh.

Do you believe in Jesus? Salvation? the Fall of Man? The sinful nature?

From what did man fall?

If Christ restores us to the paradise of "tooth-and-claw, caranage and death, extinction and starvation" -- you know "the Garden of Eden" - then will your "religion" be satisified?

IN christ,

Bob

[ April 16, 2003, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[Matt Black]

I do not deny the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God; the Bible never claims that title for itself. If you read my post on Anthro's 'cooperating with God' thread in the Politics forum you will get a fairer idea of where I stand and hopefully be in no doubt as to my salvation. I'll say two things here though in addition: firstly, to me, Genesis 1-3 is an allegorical description of the Fall of all of us and the state we are in; therefore it is necessary for a Redeemer, namely Jesus Christ, to save us from our own nature - no problem with that, the problem I have is with the literalist quasi-scientific interpretation of it. Secondly, a question to Bob and Helen, which requires a very simple yes or no answer - do rabbits chew cud, yes or no?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

The Genesis 1-3 section you refer to calls ITSELF a "the ACCOUNT" of the creation of earth and ALL that is in it.

You "Rewrite" that to say "an allegory".

Peter (Pope Peter for some) - says that the OT text "is NOT a matter of ones own interpretation but holy men of old moved by the Spirit of God Spoke From God".

Indeed - it is "The Word of God" according to that NT saint - speaking of the OT text.

So in fact evilutionists must first compromise the Gospel of Christ to wrench evolution from the text instead of the objective model of exegeting its true meaning.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

"Men moved by the Spirit of God" does not amount to "Word of God" - this is a title for Jesus only and to equate the Bible with this amounts to a form of idolatry.

I see you haven't answered the question, Bob. What about rabbits, Bob? R-A-B-B-I-T-S.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

Matt -

What is the problem with Rabbits?

Is it their "divided hoof"?

They have a single stomach - not a multi-stage one, but they "appear" to chew the cud. So if the "human" were the one "looking" to see "whats for dinner" - they might have that to deal with.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Heb 4 states "The WORD of God is living and active and sharper than a two edged sword".

The apostles SPOKE "the Word of God"

Those who minister in the church but are not preaching the Gospel are "neglecting the Word of God" to minister to tables (Acts 6:1-3)

Acts 13:46 "It was necessary that the Word of God be SPOKEN to you".

Romans 9:6 speaking of the OT promises to the Hebrews "But it is not as though the Word of God has failed".

1Thess 2:13 Paul declares that the inspired words spoken by the apostles are "The Word of God".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
So if the "human" were the one "looking" to see "whats for dinner" - they might have that to deal with.

Bob

Exactly my point, Bob - the Bible, while divinely inspired, is filtered through human agency and is therefore going to contain the sort of inaccuracies that result therefrom such as the inaaccuracy that rabbits chew cud. Now do you get it? (BTW - point taken re 'Word of God' - I just tend to flinch a bit when the Bible appears to be worshipped as much as God )

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[RichardC]

Helen wrote:

It also needs to be said that ‘interpretation’ is not a word that applies to simply believing what something says.

Helen, can you believe “what something says” without first determining what it means, that is, what the speaker or author intended? Consider the following text:

…A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. [Luke 10:30-34, KJV]

Do you believe what this says? Don’t you first have to decide what its speaker or author meant?

The point is that to say “I believe what Genesis says” requires making a prior determination as to what the author(s) or Author meant, i.e., the meaning the A/author(s) intended us to understand from the text. If you believe that Genesis 1-3 should be understood as a literal historical account of events, then you have made a determination that the A/author(s) intended us to understand the text in just this way. Genesis is just a string of Hebrew characters, meaningless in itself (it would indeed be meaningless if it had been typed by chance by an army of monkeys

), until one has made a determination as to what the A/author(s) meant and intended us to understand by it.

If we are agreed on this point, we can get on with the task of discussing the point of disagreement, namely how God or the human authors of Genesis intended its readers to understand this text.

 

[BobRyan]

Exactly my point, Bob - the Bible, while divinely inspired, is filtered through human agency and is therefore going to contain the sort of inaccuracies that result therefrom such as the inaaccuracy that rabbits chew cud.

In the case of the Rabbit it is clear to the human that it does not have a hoof (split or otherwise) - but they do appear to chew the cud.

Since the human is the one making the decision about "dinner", the fact that they appear to chew the cud is not debated - rather the fact that they obviously do not have a split hoof is the clincher. Opening the rabbit up to see that in fact he is not chewing the cud - would not make sense.

IN the case of the 7 day week of Creation - the rotation of the earth CAUSING the day and nigt sequence is not mentioned. Although we know scientifically that this is what caused that sequence and we know that some kind of single-side light source must have been used.

INSTEAD of going into that - the presentation is made from the human point of view standing on the ground. And what they "SEE" is the day and night sequence - they "see" exactly ONE and they "see" that it is 1 day instead of months or years. So in fact Moses is NOT gettin the "Rotation of the planet" story - (i.e. the FULL story) he is getting the pratical effect as seen by a human from the ground.

That is Waaaaaaaaaay different than saying that the night was a billion years and the day was a billion years and that the rotation of the earth had nothing to do with either one etc, etc.

The mythology that evolutionism weaves into the "account" of God's creation STARTS with the premise "There IS no CREATOR God" and the only way a "CREATOR God" would be allowed is if he "Obviously does NOTHING", in other words - ONLY if natural forces and events account for EVERYTHING can there be a "god" because then you can fully discount him in ALL presentations on "origins".

But that "religion" of evolutionism fully corrupts the Gospel.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Hi Bob and everybody.

Bob, there's no question that between your view of theology and the view of science as to the facts of the history of the universe, something's gotta give. The two are mutually incompatible.

But I say that in fact even you do not always take the bible literally for what it directly says, and when you find a verse that says something you know to not be true, you will find a way to reinterpret the verse to make the necessary adjustment. This in spite of the fact that you will have to bend the rules of logic and language to do this. You will then deny you bent the rules.

For example, take the now famous verse about all flying insects having four legs. Not just grasshoppers, mind you, but every flying insect is asserted to have four legs!

See Leviticus 11:22 - 23.

Now we know that no winged creatre having both four legs and wings ever existed. Six legs and wings, yes; two legs and wings, yes; nothing else.

So typically a literalist such as yourself will deny the sense of the words and say they are not meant to be literal, but are a figure of speech, perhaps an idiomatic phrase. If this is not your tack, you have some other way of denying the sense of the verses, but that is not mine to say just what you do, perhaps you'll share.

Let's consider those who suggest the words are merely an idiom. I submit that this is cheating, the only reason you know them to be non-literal is because they are not true. In fact, such interpreters allow their judgement of what is true to supercede the literal words of scripture right here in this passage, and they do this not out of disrespect for God or the Bible, but because we all know grasshoppers and other flying insects actually have six legs, period.

By the same line of reasoning, knowing as we do that the genesis narrative is not strictly true in the literal sense, we can declare it to be best interpreted in a non-literal manner, can we not?

The only thing that stops someone such as yourself from going along that route is - you have not yet realized evolution is, in fact, true.

Once you come to that realization you will be able to interpret scripture along the lines as you interpret Leviticus 11:22-23 even now.

Perhaps you personally will manage to avoid accepting the evidence; I will call that rationalizing away the truth, you will call that being faithful to the Bible. But alas, you will have to deal with many who have both trusted Christ for salvation and acknowledged God's use of evolution in His creative process for the rest of your life. Please be very careful to not turn any of them away from the kingdom by insisting they believe something they know to not be true!

 

[BobRyan]

Paul
the only reason you know them to be non-literal is because they are not true. In fact, such interpreters allow their judgement of what is true to supercede the literal words of scripture right here in this passage, and they do this not out of disrespect for God or the Bible, but because we all know grasshoppers and other flying insects actually have six legs, period.

By the same line of reasoning, knowing as we do that the genesis narrative is not strictly true in the literal sense, we can declare it to be best interpreted in a non-literal manner, can we not?

You "guess that God's Word regarding origins is not true" but you don't "know it".

Paul,

I have argued that the "very DETAILS" of the Gen 1-3 "Account" are appealed to by God in the 10 commandments in His OWN summary of the 7 days of creation AND by the NT authors in making their case for various points of the Gospel.

I did not argue that "Grasshoppers" were at the nexus of the Gospel message.

I argued that the literal fall of man from a perfect sinless "paradise" was -- i.e. the VERY details that evilutionism's high priests defy in the mythologies that they spin and then hope to wrap scientists around their myths as human shields.

The fact is - science itself can not show evultionism to be a fact and the compromise of evolutionism and Christianity corrupts the Gospel.

Your Bird and grasshopper supposition not withstanding.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Hi Bob and everybody.

Bob, there's no question that between your view of theology and the view of science as to the facts of the history of the universe, something's gotta give. The two are mutually incompatible.

That has been exactly my point to you many, many times, Paul. God's word or man's limited knowledge and understanding...which? The two are DEFINITELY incompatible! You are choosing man's understanding. We are choosing God's Word. What is really interesting, though, is that in order to support the concept of man's understanding, you are denying us the right to look into Hebrew culture and language for the idioms which explain your grasshopper and bird. There is no problem with them, as I have repeated here and on other forums so many times it's somewhat bizarre! It doesn't seem to make any difference to you, but for others here:

The Hebrews, as did most other cultures of all times, classified animals by their means of locomotion. Thus the bat was classified with the bird, simply because of locomotion, not because of our criteria regarding modern taxonomy.

In the same way, because birds were flying things with TWO feet, other flying things with more than two feet were 'four-footed' as a generic term. Creeping things were the same way. Man is two-footed. Dogs, insects, and even centipedes were then all 'four-footed'. It was a generic term and used that way in that culture.

Refusal to even acknowledge this is to refuse what man has learned on the one hand and then accept it above the Word of God on the other where current science is concerned.

In other words, Paul, you are accepting only what you WANT to accept, without any other criteria than that it 'makes sense' to you. That's a pretty shaky criteria!

By the same line of reasoning, knowing as we do that the genesis narrative is not strictly true in the literal sense, we can declare it to be best interpreted in a non-literal manner, can we not?

The only reason you declare it untrue in the literal sense, Paul, is because you are putting man's 'knowledge' about life on earth above God's knowledge. That is a WHOLE lot different than digging back into linguistics to find out various idiomatic phrases!

The only thing that stops someone such as yourself from going along that route is - you have not yet realized evolution is, in fact, true.

And this is your driving point: evolution has to be true. Despite genetic impossibilities, despite time impossibilities, despite what the Bible says, despite everything. It is a pure matter of faith for you, above faith in God's ability to communicate clearly and simply with men. I don't expect you to deny your faith, Paul, but I do want to point it out to the others reading here.

No one is turning any person away from Christ by supporting the real truth of the Bible. It is when folks insist that man's knowledge is the plumb line by which God's Word is to be judged that you are in danger of undermining the faith of many. If God was a God we understood and could easily explain in terms of what we can comprehend, He would not be God.

What is very appealing to me, however, is that God has not contradicted Himself between His Word and His creation. The evidence from creation itself in various fields upholds the truth of what Paul has said in Romans 1 -- that no man has an excuse, for God has shown His character in the very creation itself. And this is perfectly in concord with Jesus statement saying He is the way, the TRUTH, and the life...

 

[BobRyan]

quote: Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the same line of reasoning, knowing as we do that the genesis narrative is not strictly true in the literal sense, we can declare it to be best interpreted in a non-literal manner, can we not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Helen
The only reason you declare it untrue in the literal sense, Paul, is because you are putting man's 'knowledge' about life on earth above God's knowledge.

Actually the sad truth is - it isn't even man's knowledge of events 6000 years ago vs God's knowledge of events 6000 years ago.

It is man's unverifiable "guesswork" vs God's "truth".

It is like an ignorant savage in the darkest jungle "speculating" that computers evolve from the clustering of rocks and trees given "enough time and chance" compared to Intel's "explanation" for the same. The one who "DID IT" has far more credibility than the one who merely ignorantly speculates about it from a great distance. Even on something so simple as a computer.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

So, when God shows us His creation directly, we cannot understand it, because we have limited understanding, but if some people wrote about it thousands of years ago, and handed it down through numerous translations and revisions by men, then we have perfect information about it?

No, that makes no sense. It is an error to suppose that one can't directly understand reality, but that reading the Bible gives you omnisicence.

If the Bible and reality seem to contradict each other, it is because we have misunderstood one or both of them. It is the worst sort of pride to imagine that our personal interpretation of Scripture is God's word.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
So, when God shows us His creation directly, we cannot understand it, because we have limited understanding, but if some people wrote about it thousands of years ago, and handed it down through numerous translations and revisions by men, then we have perfect information about it?

That is more correct than you know, Galatian. First of all, we are nowhere near understanding creation! Any of it! We are still what may be at the beginning of a process of both discovery and understanding.

And what 'some people' wrote was inspired by God. The Bible is HIS Word, not theirs. It just came through them. And it does not give us complete information, but it does give us the perfect parameters within which the truth may be found as we embark on our times of discovery.

No, that makes no sense. It is an error to suppose that one can't directly understand reality, but that reading the Bible gives you omnisicence.

The nonsense about omniscience is your straw man. No one said anything about that but you. So you are welcome to knock it down, but that is your business. Reading the Bible gives us perfectly accurate guidelines about where to search for reality and truth. In addition, the Bible also tells us, in James, that we may ask God for wisdom. This, in itself, is a wise thing to do -- but one which I doubt more than a handful of scientists do.

If the Bible and reality seem to contradict each other, it is because we have misunderstood one or both of them. It is the worst sort of pride to imagine that our personal interpretation of Scripture is God's word.

Taking the Bible at face value as per its straightforward meaning is not interpreting. So I would caution you with your own words, for you DO interpret the Bible according to what you think it means to try to bring it into accord with the current understandings mainstream evolutionary science has to offer.

 

[BobRyan]

So, when God shows us His creation directly, we cannot understand it, because we have limited understanding, but if some people wrote about it thousands of years ago, and handed it down through numerous translations and revisions by men, then we have perfect information about it?

God is not standing you - or any atheist you know, on the brink of the abyss and displaying His act of creating a solar system with a living planet in it.

I may SEE the sun today and SEE it again tomorrow. And without knowing How to CREATE the Sun I DO KNOW that I SAW it today and that I SAW it the next day. This is obvious - but evoltionism lives in denial of the "obvious".

But IF God DID show you his creative work - I would "expect" that you could write down what you saw in that seven day timeline EVEN without exhaustive scientific research into each event.

A 12 year old could write down "what they saw" and we would "believe them" while knowing that they did not understand all the "science" involved. HOWEVER - a 12 year old should be able to comprehend that "evening and morning is ONE day". And sure enough - they do. They should know "A plant when the see one". They should know "the Sun when they see it".

And sure enough -- they do.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

Galatian asks:
So, when God shows us His creation directly, we cannot understand it, because we have limited understanding, but if some people wrote about it thousands of years ago, and handed it down through numerous translations and revisions by men, then we have perfect information about it?

That is more correct than you know, Galatian. First of all, we are nowhere near understanding creation! Any of it!

All the more reason that we should be careful about trying to shoehorn our own ideas into Genesis. The evidence shows that the Earth is billions of years old, and that it formed over millions of years. From the first, many, if not most Christians realized that Genesis could not be about six literal days.

And what 'some people' wrote was inspired by God.

We accept the Bible because it has been handed down to us on the basis of tradition, and scholarship and inspiration of men who gave us the most recent versions. Our particular understandings of their particular understandings might not be inspired by God, but by our own desires.

The Bible is HIS Word, not theirs. It just came through them. And it does not give us complete information, but it does give us the perfect parameters within which the truth may be found as we embark on our times of discovery.

The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. It is not about science. If you try to take science lessons from it, you will end up imagining that the Earth is a disk, that rabbits chew cud, and other false ideas.

Galatian observes:
No, that makes no sense. It is an error to suppose that one can't directly understand reality, but that reading the Bible gives you omnisicence.

The nonsense about omniscience is your straw man. No one said anything about that but you.

We should always be aware that we are interpreting Scripture through our own hopes and desires, no matter how hard we try. None of us know precisely what it means. A little humility would go a long way.

In addition, the Bible also tells us, in James, that we may ask God for wisdom. This, in itself, is a wise thing to do -- but one which I doubt more than a handful of scientists do.

Since most of us are theists, I think your accusation is unfortunate.

Barbarian observes:
If the Bible and reality seem to contradict each other, it is because we have misunderstood one or both of them. It is the worst sort of pride to imagine that our personal interpretation of Scripture is God's word.

Taking the Bible at face value as per its straightforward meaning is not interpreting.

That is the problem. Everyone thinks that they take it at face value. Yet, there are many different understandings. Yours is as valid as anyone elses, albeit a minority among Christians.

So I would caution you with your own words, for you DO interpret the Bible according to what you think it means to try to bring it into accord with the current understandings mainstream evolutionary science has to offer.

There is nothing within the Bible that comments either way on many scientific phenomena. Evolution is one of those.

 

[Helen]

All the more reason that we should be careful about trying to shoehorn our own ideas into Genesis. The evidence shows that the Earth is billions of years old, and that it formed over millions of years. From the first, many, if not most Christians realized that Genesis could not be about six literal days.

No, Galatian, the INTERPRETATION of the evidence shows the earth is that old. The more evidence we gather, the more we can see that that interpretation is wrong and that there is no shoehorning necessary at all where either good science or Genesis is concerned. The evidence agrees with a straightforward reading of Genesis: we live in a young creation.

Now, YOU may accept the Bible because of tradition. In that case, you might as well accept the Iliad and the Odyssey as well, or Gilgamesh! You state “Our particular understandings … might not be inspired by God, but by our own desires.” I agree, and that is why it is far better to accept what God caused to be written in a straightforward manner rather than trusting any man’s ‘interpretation’ of it.

In the meantime, the Bible is not acceptable because of tradition, but because it has proved itself historically, scientifically, and prophetically. This has nothing to do with tradition, although I know you Catholics seem to hold tradition in higher esteem than the Bible itself!

You say the Bible is not about science. No, it is not. But it does give us the parameters within which scientific truth may be found. And then it verifies its ability to do that by presenting scientific facts only verifiable to us within the last hundred years or so, which the writers themselves would have had no idea about, save inspiration from God. After all, if the Creator of all that we see cannot give us accurate guidelines about that which we can verify, why on earth should we trust Him or what He has caused to be written regarding something as important as our eternal destinies? One cannot pick and choose like that. The Bible is either the Word of God, start to finish, or it is not. If it is not, then you are in a position of needing to trust your own mind rather than God’s. I would not like to be in that position myself. God has been gracious enough to me in my own life to help me understand, experience by experience, that I can trust Him in all things.

And one of the things I can trust is His ability to communicate clearly in His Word. I don’t have to depend on myself for the meaning. I can ask HIM for wisdom, and He is not sparing. That is a request He will always answer in the affirmative for those who are His.

Understanding the Bible does not take human minds to ‘interpret’ its meaning. Its meaning is extremely clear and further understanding of cultural expressions only helps clarify it more; it does not change the meaning. It is only when you come at the Bible from the preconceptions of those who are anti-Bible, such as the basic evolutionary position, that you find you are forced to ‘reinterpret’ various sections to try to shoehorn THEM into what the Bible ‘really’ means. That is an insult to God at the very least.

You suggest a little humility will go a long way. Might I turn those words around on you to suggest that man’s mind is no challenge to God’s? That He has always known not only what He is talking about, but how to communicate with us? To ‘reinterpret’ the Bible to fit with your evolutionary preconceptions is the height of arrogance.

Your response that most scientists are theists was not a response that had anything at all to do with my statement that probably no more than a handful of scientists ever ask God for wisdom regarding understanding their own work! You sidestepped that one and tried to insert something between a reprimand and an insult into your answer. But you did not answer, and I know I am speaking the truth. Tell me plainly, how many scientists do you know of or have you ever seen who actually get down on their knees and pray for understanding and guidance? I know of one, and I am married to him. He knows of about two others. And, between the two of us, we do know a reasonable number of both Christian and non-Christian scientists!

You closed with “There is nothing within the Bible that comments either way on many scientific phenomena. Evolution is one of those.” That is a flat out untruth. It is not ignorance because I, for one, have shown you a number of times in the past five years the places where the Bible denies evolution completely. Genesis 1-3 is one place. 2 Peter 3 is another. The Bible is quite definite about not only distinct kinds created during creation week, but about the youth of creation. Your choosing to ignore all that does not invalidate it; it only invalidates your arguments for any Christian who trusts God to be able to communicate clearly to us.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Helen:

What is really interesting, though, is that in order to support the concept of man's understanding, you are denying us the right to look into Hebrew culture and language for the idioms which explain your grasshopper and bird. There is no problem with them, as I have repeated here and on other forums so many times it's somewhat bizarre! It doesn't seem to make any difference to you, but for others here:

The Hebrews, as did most other cultures of all times, classified animals by their means of locomotion. Thus the bat was classified with the bird, simply because of locomotion, not because of our criteria regarding modern taxonomy.

In the same way, because birds were flying things with TWO feet, other flying things with more than two feet were 'four-footed' as a generic term. Creeping things were the same way. Man is two-footed. Dogs, insects, and even centipedes were then all 'four-footed'. It was a generic term and used that way in that culture.

[/QB]

How do you know the Hebrews use that exact "four footed" classification? I am unaware of any examples contemporary with the writing of Leviticus to that effect. Do you have such an example, other than the one of which we speak? If not, then you are merely rescuing the contradiction by making an assumption. As I recall, you mentioned having seen this explanation in the Talmud but cannot find the reference at this time. The Talmud itself often contains blatent examples of obviously made up ad-hoc statements, so whether it was you or a an earlier Talmudic writer who made this up to rescue the error, it makes no difference.

Of course, perhaps we could be kind to each other. I'll allow you to make up this rescue of inerrancy if you'll allow me to make up a rescue of inerrancy for Genesis 1. But we gotta be fair both ways, apply the same rules both ways.

We'll "only" need to make the "day" be indefinate, and also we need to allow these "indefinate days" to be overlapping, not exclusively following each other in turn. With that slight modification . ..

And we can say that any departure from the strict literal sense is due to idiomatic use of the words!

Why not? For that is exactly what you just did above with the Leviticus passage.