tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4992542558446504317.post8188325773459203237..comments2020-07-31T08:27:59.130-07:00Comments on Skrignov's Corner: Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2: Literalness Isn't the Only Form of TruthSkrignovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17628791954692813183noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4992542558446504317.post-18720797461971420712010-11-14T08:10:21.060-08:002010-11-14T08:10:21.060-08:00I just realized my logic and ideas veered in my or...I just realized my logic and ideas veered in my original post, and so I didn’t arrive at the conclusion I normally do. Essentially, I use this example of Genesis 1 and Genesis “contradicting” one another to make the simple point that the writers of these chapters didn’t INTEND for them to be taken literally. I’m not even sure they’d be able to express it quite like this, but I think it remains true. <br /><br />It is later readers – beginning early on with medieval scholars like John Wycliffe, who sought to stem the tide of potential heresy by claiming that all truth is found in the Bible, and that the Bible is complete truth – that feel the need to claim that the creation story is COMPLETE and LITERAL truth, perhaps out of fear that, if it isn’t, then it isn’t true at all – or something like that. <br /><br />But what we have in the original stories is a writer (or more than one) who begins with one story, and then follows it up with a different, literally contradictory, story. This writer couldn’t have intended both to be taken literally; the problem is obvious.Jonashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01907857891682323709noreply@blogger.com