For those of you that think creationists are, “literalists”. Sure, that works as propaganda, in that making out that we are just a small sub-group of Christians that don’t accept science and think in simple literal terms, is very useful to the lies you spread but in terms of CARING about truth and actual facts?
Well if there are any of you that do care about actual facts I have some news for you. You are a bible literalist also.
Why? Because Genesis is written in the style of historical narrative. It is the style of stating something as historical fact. To be consistent, you must take it in it’s proper style and context and since that style doesn’t change throughout genesis then singling out the flood, the creation week, and the geneaologies would be INCONSISTENT.
There is nothing in the text which SWITCHES to poetry when the text mentions these things, then switches back to historical style. It is simply written in the same historical narrative as the rest of Genesis proving the reason you don’t take 3% of Genesis literally must be for reasons outside of the text, since there are no reasons within the text and outside of the text is the only remaining place.
So then what do we find outside of the text? We find evolution, which just so happens to contradict those three main areas you wouldn’t take literally!
So here is the problem; the 97% of the events in Genesis you accept literally do NOT contradict evolution and uniformatarianism, but the 3% you argue are metaphor and shouldn’t be taken literally, DO contradict evolution and eons.
LOL!
I mean CAN YOU GET ANY MORE OBVIOUS? You can read this one with your eyes wide shut it’s so easy to see the motive. It has nothing to do with literalism, and everything to do with avoiding the obvious meaning of Genesis.
If I am 100% literalist when it comes to the book of Genesis, you are 97% literalist. So I guess we are both simpleton science-deniers, right?
Don’t you ever get tired of how DUMB your propaganda has to be in order to PRETEND creationists aren’t what they are? We are simply the ones who truly believe what the bible says and means. Nobody else really believes it.
Here is an analogy that shows why those that don’t accept creation week, are really unbelievers the same as atheists;
Mike; "That man has just punched me in the face."
Bob; "I believe Mike. I believe what he says, but I don't believe he was literally hit in the face, that's not what he meant."
Question; Then what did he mean?
Bob; "He didn't mean he was hit in the face."
...We get back to Bob three weeks later;
Then what did he mean?
Bob; "I believe mike is a truthful person, but I don't believe it means he was punched in the face."
We get back to Bob four years later.
If mike didn't mean what he said, what did he mean?
Bob; "I believe there are certainly more meanings to what mike meant, but one thing I am absolutely SURE about is that he wasn't hit in the face."
Conclusion; The only possibility is that Bob doesn't really believe what mike says because if there is only really one meaning to what mike says that makes sense then appealing to non-existent meanings is just to not believe the statement, logically.
(let us pretend that when mike says this, it was catalogued in a book of his injuries, where all the other things he mentioned turned out to be real events where he got injured.) Just like the rest of Genesis is a book of historical events that happened, the same as in Genesis 1 and 2, meaning there is just no reason to not take it literally.
CONCLUSION; Just face reality truthfully for once, there is no logical way out of this bind (even if you throw RESPONSES at me you think are retorts as per usual. They’re not retorts, because you can’t escape that this is simply correct); the fact is the things it says in Genesis such as that certain kinds produce their own seed within themselves, can only mean one thing. We don’t expect to get mice or pigs from seeds do we? Obviously Genesis is saying life reproduces it’s own genetically created type. What would the other meaning be? If it’s not literal then why does it match the real world? Will I get apples from an apple tree?
So then if the context is a description of how things are designed to be and it matches the real world then why would it have another meaning? Answer; not only does it not have any other meaning, no theistic evolutionist has ever came up with any that would make sense, that any portion of them would believe as any sort of explanation.
what about when it says the animals were vegetarian at the time of creation? What would this mean under theistic-evolution? is it a metaphor for predatory behaviour? ROFL!!!
™ Version 4.2
(1)
