My Symbolic Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Simple YES or NO question:

Is Genesis 1 reduced to symbols so that a literal teaching of creation can be replaced with a literal teaching of evolution?

(Please note that I'm not looking for two feet of text. I'm looking for a single word: YES or NO.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Simple YES or NO question:

Is Genesis 1 reduced to symbols so that a literal teaching of creation can be replaced with a literal teaching of evolution?

(Please note that I'm not looking for two feet of text. I'm looking for a single word: YES or NO.)

N-ES.

 

[chevyontheriver]

N-ES.

Well, that's a dodge. But then again most 'yes or no' questions don't come with 'yes or no' answers.

 

[SelfSim]

Simple YES or NO question:

Is Genesis 1 reduced to symbols so that a literal teaching of creation can be replaced with a literal teaching of evolution?

(Please note that I'm not looking for two feet of text. I'm looking for a single word: YES or NO.)

Doesn't take replacement with symbols to do that.
NO.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, that's a dodge. But then again most 'yes or no' questions don't come with 'yes or no' answers.

Honestly, the way it's phrased, I can't answer the question. But that's ok.

 

[SelfSim]

Honestly, the way it's phrased, I can't answer the question. But that's ok.

.. as is the norm for these ridiculuously conceived 'challenges' .. (which aren't).

 

[Lost4words]

Woof!

 

[dlamberth]

Honestly, the way it's phrased, I can't answer the question. But that's ok.

I can't answer the question as well.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

NO

 

[Aaron112]

NO

Simple YES or NO question:

Is Genesis 1 reduced to symbols so that a literal teaching of creation can be replaced with a literal teaching of evolution?

(Please note that I'm not looking for two feet of text. I'm looking for a single word: YES or NO.)

Not even a question, really. Perhaps meant to show the difference between those who obey , trust, and follow Jesus, and those who follow the world or anything else ?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Honestly, the way it's phrased, I can't answer the question. But that's ok.

Note that I didn't even try.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, I don't see how.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I don't see how.

Reduced to symbols ... symbolic ... allegoric ... mythological ... non-literal ... take your pick.

But ... just try to understand ... will you?

At least try.

 

[trophy33]

Simple YES or NO question:

Is Genesis 1 reduced to symbols so that a literal teaching of creation can be replaced with a literal teaching of evolution?

(Please note that I'm not looking for two feet of text. I'm looking for a single word: YES or NO.)

What do you mean by "reduced"? Symbolism is more than literal reading. Literal reading would be the reduction - to simple technical description without deeper meanings.

 

[durangodawood]

Simple YES or NO question:

Is Genesis 1 reduced to symbols so that a literal teaching of creation can be replaced with a literal teaching of evolution?

(Please note that I'm not looking for two feet of text. I'm looking for a single word: YES or NO.)

NO

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Reduced to symbols ... symbolic ... allegoric ... mythological ... non-literal ... take your pick.

But ... just try to understand ... will you?

At least try.

No, I'm responding to this part, which is the salient question: "Is Genesis 1 reduced to symbols so that a literal teaching of creation can be replaced with a literal teaching of evolution?"

I say again; No, I don't see how. There is no 'literal teaching of evolution'. That's a comment that makes no sense. Is there a non-literal teaching of evolution we don't know about?

 

[durangodawood]

Is Genesis 1 reduced to symbols.....

Genesis has been reduced to literalism imo.

 

[BCP1928]

No, I don't see how.

What SelfSim said. No.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What SelfSim said. No.

I know, that's why I said it.

 

[SelfSim]

What SelfSim said. No.

I can also see that it doesn't really matter what answer is given, when its obvious that the question is flawed in the first place!