The Ten Laws of Creationism and Intelligent Design

Of course, even if you assume that it is Gods communication - in some sense - which is the most that you could actually get from the Bible that hardly means that it was intended to tell us what happened in the distant past.And it is far from clear that your views are correct even from looking at the text. For instance, if God wished to give us an accurate account of the Flood it seems rather odd that He would do it by mashing two versions of the story together.

quote:

---

Why not? If it says something about the distant past then it's telling us the truth about that distant past. It tells us about Creation, it tells us about the Flood. If it's God's word and He cannot lie then it's telling us the truth about those events.

---

Because it is not clear that Gods intended message - even from what the Bible says - is to be found in a literal reading.

quote:

---

I see, and you've had a conversation with Him about this and know He wouldn't do it that way?

---

I said that it seems odd - why do that rather than simply producing a single story ? Athough I do have to point out it is hardly a way to get a literally accurate account. The stories differ and where they differ they can hardly both be correct.

quote:

---

But nobody but unbelievers read the Flood accounts that way, unbelievers including the "scholars" who come up with such stuff. There's no "mashing" involved, believers know that everything in the Bible is to be read as dovetailing with everything else in the Bible.

---

I.e. Believers distort the Bible to fit their beliefs. Hardly the way to treat the literal "Word of God"