answersincreation.org (Literal Genesis AND Old Earth Creationism?)

Hi kbertsche, But that isn't what it says! You are changing the text.In Gen1:1 God creates the heaven. Then, in Gen 1:6-7 God creates a firmament/expanse and in 1:8 he calls it heaven. Now if you want to claim that these are both events in a sequence, that means he made heaven twice. Previously, I have said this with regards to the kind of subjective truth that you are talking about; I think that makes it pretty clear where I'm coming from. The moral and personal lessons we might take from a novel might be true, but that doesn't mean that the story in The Grapes of Wrath is true. It's not true. It's untrue. It's fiction.You can insist that it's subjective truisms make it true if you like, but all you are doing is equivocating. When I made my original comment, it was perfectly clear what kind of truth I was talking about; objective truth; a story that matches objective reality. I suggested that the Gen 1 creation account "might be literal but simply untrue". Clearly I am talking about objective truth and objective reality. You are trying to equivocate.Just because it's true that "With great power comes great responsibility.", doesn't mean it's true that Peter Parker got bitten by a radioactive spider. Finding subjective truth in fiction doesn't make it true, but a failure to agree with objective reality does make a story untrue. Fictional stories are untrue.You are trying to raise the Bible to a status where it is true even when it is untrue. This is a fundamentally dishonest approach. Frankly you are being ridiculous now. I said "literal but simply untrue". Note the use of the word "literal". Your poem is not literal. If we were to take your poem literally, as I was suggesting for this interpretation of Genesis, then it is clearly not true. You are moving the goalposts. I wasn't talking about poetry and I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about a literal interpretation.The literal interpretation is not true. That makes it untrue.Mutate and Survive

You can say that about any work of fiction that has historical aspect.Look at The DaVinci Code. DaVinci was real and historical, The Vatican exists, Paris exists. Therefore using your reasoning the DaVinci Code should be taken as a literal and allegorical truth.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think it makes good sense. The literary structure and flow seems to be:
v1) In the beginning, God created everything.

---

But that isn't what it says! You are changing the text.

​

In Gen1:1 God creates the heaven. Then, in Gen 1:6-7 God creates a firmament/expanse and in 1:8 he calls it heaven. Now if you want to claim that these are both events in a sequence, that means he made heaven twice.

---

No, that is what it says. The phrase "heavens and earth" in Gen 1:1 is a merism meaning "everything". Later, where the words "heavens" or "earth occur alone, they have a much more restricted, normal meaning.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Or what about poetry? Is it "true" or "untrue" that the sun is like a strong man who leaves his tent in the morning and runs across the sky throughout the day, as described in Psalm 19? This is not "true" in a scientific sense, of course. But it describes a real, true observation in poetic terms, so should not be called "untrue," either.

---

Frankly you are being ridiculous now. I said "literal but simply untrue". Note the use of the word "literal". Your poem is not literal. If we were to take your poem literally, as I was suggesting for this interpretation of Genesis, then it is clearly not true. You are moving the goalposts. I wasn't talking about poetry and I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about a literal interpretation.

​

The literal interpretation is not true. That makes it untrue.

---

But we are talking about Genesis 1, which does contain a significant amount of poetic imagery. Poetry is not off-bounds in this discussion--especially poetry about nature, as Psalm 19.I think you being much too narrow in your definition of "truth." You want to evaluate "truth" on a single metric which includes full scientific and historical accuracy. By your definition, the official times for sunrise and sunset can never be "true," because the sun does not actually rise and set--instead, the earth rotates.The use of figures of speech or poetic imagery does not make an account "untrue." I maintain that Psalm 19 is "true" even though it is poetic. The author was not attempting to communicate scientific truth about celestial orbits, thus the Psalm cannot be charged to be "untrue" on these grounds. We have the same situation in Genesis 1. Before we can decide if it is "true" or "untrue", we need to determine what the author was attempting to communicate. If he was not attempting to communicate literal, historical, scientific information, then it should not be called "untrue" on these grounds.

Maybe you should address the issue GM brought out about you equivocating with the words true and truth.I just put a seal in my toilet, but that doesn't mean there is a Pinniped swimming in my toilet. The same word can have different meanings and definitions.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

Maybe you should address the issue GM brought out about you equivocating with the words true and truth.

---

But I did address this issue. I do not believe I am equivocating with the words. Rather, I believe biblical critics try to define the word too narrowly and one-dimensionally. Look again at the last two paragraphs of my posting: There is a strong linkage between authorial intent, interpretation, and truth/untruth. To call something "untrue" is to imply that the author is in error, either intentionally lying or unintentionally mistaken. But this evaluation depends on our interpretation of what the author was trying to communicate. It is possible that he was neither lying nor mistaken.For example, if the weatherman says that "the sun rose this morning at 6:38 AM," this is not correct in a scientific sense. But is it "untrue?" Is the weatherman lying or mistaken? No, he is just using a common figure of speech. He is not trying to communicate that the sun actually moves around the earth. To call his statement "untrue" is to misinterpret it, to ascribe the wrong intent to the speaker.Likewise in Genesis 1. What is the author trying to communicate? Is he trying to present a scientific, historical, chronological account of origins, as both atheists and YECs assume? Or is he trying to describe historical events in non-scientific, poetic terms? Or is he trying to present a non-historical thematic arrangement of the cosmos rather than a historical account of its actual creation? Or is he using the basic literary structure of extant cosmogonies as a polemic against their theologies?Calling Genesis 1 "untrue" implicitly assumes that the author is trying to present a scientific, historical, chronological account of origins. But this intent has yet to be shown. If this is not the authorial intent, then it is not correct to label Gen 1 as "untrue" on this basis.

OK kbertsche, this is going to be a message of two halves, one rather longer than the other...First, your claim that Gen1:1 is a merism meaning "everything". This actually makes a whole lot of sense and I find myself much persuaded by it. I would need to see other examples of the use of "heaven and earth" as a merism in comparable texts, but basically, you have pretty much convinced me.One thing to note though is that this provides no comfort for Old Earth Creationism of the kind that achristian1985 was advocating. The interpretation you suggest implies a formless universe, with nothing differentiated from anything else to the point where we could possibly have any meaningful history squeezed into Gen 1:1.Just for the record, you can mark this down in the "Granny Magda is not unreasonable" column, before we move onto part two...

---

I was not talking about psalm 19! I was talking about fucking Genesis1! Why do you insist on moving the goalposts? You are being dishonest.Poetry is off bounds in this discussion. Know why? Because you were criticising something I said in Message 80. Here it is again. I am not talking about a "poetic" interpretation of Genesis. i am very clearly and specifically talking about a literal interpretation. A wholly literal interpretation. Why can't you grasp that? Do the words not appear on your screen or something? Maybe you should try a different browser, because from where I'm sitting, a child could tell that what I was calling untrue was a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and nothing more.Just to be clear, the literal interpretation is totally fucking untrue. It is fiction, a fabrication. None of the events described therein actually happened. Most can be completely falsified to the point where we know for sure that they never happened. The story is untrue.Now you may get some kind of allegorical message from Genesis, but that is irrelevant to a literal interpretation.You say that there is a significant amount of poetry in Gen1. Where exactly? All I see is a narrative describing the creation. I see a story, every verse of which serves to drive forward the narrative or reveal something about God's state of mind. This is not poetry. It may possess a lovely turn of phrase, but that doesn't make it poetry, that just makes it well written. You may be able to draw allegory from it, but that doesn't make it poetry either. You could draw allegory from the ingredients list on the back of a soda bottle.Can you point to an allegory in Gen 1 that we might reasonably consider true? Can you show me a verse which serves only as poetry and has no literal implication? Because I can show you a lot of verses that work when taken literally; all of them in fact. Obviously I would be much better with your definition of truth, which encompasses fiction, lies, mistakes, delusions and accounts that wholly differ from reality. No. Actually, I think your version of truth is debased to the point where it no longer has any meaning whatsoever. I have no idea how you could possibly have read what I wrote above and yet still have come to this conclusion. It's like you're not reading what I'm writing. This is why I am getting frustrated with you; I can't see how you can think this to be true when I have already made statements that show that it is false. Just for your benefit, here it is again; Got that? I fully acknowledge that there are objective and subjective truths. The point is that whilst there are many competing subjective truths, there is only one objective truth about the universe and its creation. We call this "reality". Genesis 1 does not not match up to reality. That makes any literal (there's that word again - pay attention to it this time please) interpretation of Genesis 1 untrue. I deem this comment to be a damn insult. I never said, or even implied any such stupid thing. Don't put words in my mouth.I never said that any use of a figure of speech was untrue. Just to clear up this little quandary that you have imagined for yourself, I am happy to state for the record that a statement which includes a figure of speech can be true. However, a statement which includes a figure of speech cannot be true if it viewed wholly literally. Whence the humour in howlers like these;

quote:

---

"And he missed the goal by literally a million miles".

​

"Cars have literally been in your blood since"

​

"They're literally playing out of their socks out there."

---

These figures of speech would be completely innocuous and the statements would be completely true save for one thing; the use of the word "literally". No-one literally has cars in their blood. To suggest that they did would be untrue. That cars might have been in someone's blood (i.e. important to their life) could be true, but as soon as you add the word "literally", the statement becomes untrue; being literal kills the metaphor.Similarly, when I talk about a literal interpretation of Genesis, it makes no sense whatsoever for you to start talking about poetry. It's irrelevant to a literal interpretation. Can you see why I'm getting frustrated with you here? Of course. But nor does poetry make a literal interpretation true. This is where you are desperately equivocating between the kind of truth that you are interested in (subjective, poetic truth) and the kind of truth that I was actually taking about (objective truth). It should be clear to even a drooling imbecile that a wholly literal creation account leaves no room for the kind of poetic truth that you are obsessing over. We absolutely do not! How the hell do you know what the author's intent was? Gen 1 is not a psalm. The psalms are clearly primarily intended as poetry, any literal intent must be considered as secondary to the poetic intent. This cannot be said of Gen 1, which is equally open to any number of different interpretations. You can't just throw away the literal interpretation. For all you know, the literal interpretation might be the sole reason it was written.I was trying to get the idea that there are multiple interpretations across to achristian1985. You are not helping. It would be if you tried to interpret it literally, as I was doing with Gen 1 in message 80.I have an idea for you kbertsche. As you go about your business this week, tell everyone you meet that Spider-Man is true. The comics, which after all, contain subjective and allegorical truths and were never intended to be taken literally, are true. Don't explain, just tell them that Spider-man is true. See what reaction you get. You'll be posting from inside a rubber room before the week is out. Why? Because Spider-man comics aren't true and because in the real world, people refer to fiction as being true. you are insisting upon a meaning that does not exist in everyday usage. Moreover, you are insisting that I must use your meaning even when I go to great lengths to tell you that wasn't what I meant.If you want to call the Bible true because it contains allegory, then are the following true;Star Wars? Is that true? It is highly allegorical. Does that mean it's true?
South Park? Every episode has a little "I've learned something today..." moral. Does that mean that South Park is true?
The Quran? It has just as much allegory and subjective truth as your holy book of choice. Is the Quran true?Or is it only the Bible that gets to be true even when every word of a chapter is fictional?Either you must accept that you are engaging in special pleading for the Bible or you must apply your definition of truth so broadly that it encompasses all of fiction. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that such a definition of truth isn't much practical use and you shouldn't be trying to force others to acknowledge it. For Christ's sake! I already determined that! I was using an example of a popular interpretation of Genesis, namely a literal interpretation. Here it is again; I never even said that I support this interpretation (in fact, I do not, at least, not on its own). It is clear that I am talking about a literal interpretation. And if that interpretation is correct and the author intended Gen 1 to be read literally, then the whole thing is untrue! How is this difficult for you? It seems pretty clear to me. No it isn't, don't be stupid. The Earth was not made in a day, you know that. there is zero possibility that Gen 1 is literally true. Don't tell me what I assume. For the record, your assumption is wrong. The bit that you have consistently ignored is actually closer to my real opinion; Genesis 1 is intended as both literal and allegorical.Nonetheless, this literal interpretation is what I was assuming in the sentence you picked out for criticism. Under this assumption, the account is clearly wrong and thus untrue. Notice how this interpretation excludes poetic interpretations.I also would like to point out that in this paragraph you throw out various differing interpretations as examples of what people might think; that is exactly what I was doing when you chose to criticise me. For (hopefully) the last time; I was assuming, for the sake of an example, one example amongst others, that achristian1985 might consider a literal interpretation; one which would make the account literally untrue.Your insistence in dragging other interpretations, interpretations that I was not talking about strikes me as desperate. You come across as being unable to hear the words "untrue" and "Bible" in a sentence together without throwing a fit. You are behaving obnoxiously by attempting to put words in my mouth and constantly trying to move the goalposts and address something that I was never talking about in the first place. Please stop it.Mutate and Survive

I will let you look up equivocation your self.My point. Hopefully you can figure it outTruth as I believe GM is using it
conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.The definition you are equivocating it too
(often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.She is not using a narrow definition of truth, you are trying to expand it to a totally different meaning of the word. They are , for all intents and purposes, different words. Yes they are spelled the same, yes they are pronounced the same, but they are different words with different meanings.These are homonym's. Their definitions may be similar, but they are not the same word.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I really wasn't trying to push your buttons. I was trying to tighten up and clarify some of your statements. I think our differences are more semantic than anything else. But I think these semantic issues are important. I'll try to explain my main points in a different (hopefully clearer) way. Point 1: I agree with you that a specific YEC interpretation of Genesis 1 is untrue. But this does not mean that Genesis 1 is untrue. To conclude this, one would have to show that this specific YEC interpretation was intended by the author.Point 2: There is a subtle difference in meaning between "untrue" and "non-historical." Parables, fairy-tales, etc. are not intended to be taken as history, so they are definitely non-historical. But I believe that to call them "untrue" is too general and vague and misleading; the term "non-historical" is clearer. We both agree that these things are non-historical, but we disagree on whether or not the terms "true" or "untrue" should be applied to them.Point 3: The term "literal" as applied to biblical interpretation by Evangelicals is usually a technical misnomer (as it is for Creation Science). Generally what is meant is "literary" or, even better, "historical-grammatical-cultural-literary." Those who claim to adopt a "literal" Bible interpretation usually do not claim that the parables were actual historical events, and they allow for imagery and figures of speech, yet they still say that their interpretation is "literal."Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

My point. Hopefully you can figure it out

​

Truth as I believe GM is using it
conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.

​

The definition you are equivocating it too
(often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.

​

She is not using a narrow definition of truth, you are trying to expand it to a totally different meaning of the word. They are , for all intents and purposes, different words. Yes they are spelled the same, yes they are pronounced the same, but they are different words with different meanings.

​

These are homonym's. Their definitions may be similar, but they are not the same word.

---

I agree. The word "untrue" is unclear, since it can have at least two different implications. This is why I've been using the term "non-historical." This is more specific and leaves less chance for misunderstanding.

Hi kbertsche, I know you weren't. I know that you are a better person than to deliberately set out to rile me up. It's nothing personal. With respect, whether you intended to do so or not, you were trying to force your (minority) definitions into my statements. That is fundamentally dishonest. And as I have said, I was clearly talking about a specific interpretation, so your input was irrelevant from the start. I am nonetheless interested though to hear from you exactly what it is about Gen 1 that you consider true... No. We must only consider the truth or untruth of the particular interpretation we are examining at a given time. I was talking about a straightforwardly literal interpretation. Under that interpretation, Genesis 1 is untrue. Simple. Then practise what you preach and go around telling people that you think Spider-Man comics are true.In my opinion you are trying to force me to use your terminology. I disagree with your terminology. I consider it obfuscatory, the opposite of what you intend.I was trying to gently introduce achristian1985 to the idea that the Genesis creation account might not be quite all it's cracked up to be. Now you actually agree with that. You know perfectly well that Genesis 1 describes events never happened. In introducing this kind of equivocation, you are clouding the issue. I consider it important that folks like ac1985 get the message that their belief in the reliability is wrong. You are not helping. All you are doing is providing another layer of obfuscation and self/mutual deception. Typical apologetics in fact. All you are doing is engaging in special pleading for the Bible. If I had said that Spider-Man wasn't true, no-one would have batted an eyelid, but say the same about Genesis and suddenly it's all far more complicated than that...Saying that Genesis might be "literal but untrue" makes my position perfectly clear. All you are doing is providing Christians with a scrap of comfort to cling onto; Genesis might describe events that never happened, but it's still true... Like I say, self-deception and mutual deception. The sort of mutual deception upon which religion depends. I regard this as the purest bullshit.The majority of Christian Bible-literalists mean exactly what they say when they claim that the Bible is literally true.This is a case of one definition for the theologians and another for the laity. Sophisticated (or should that be Sophistic?) apologists have their rarefied definitions of "literal" and proceed as if everyone knew what they meant and used the word the same way. In fact nothing could be further from the truth, as the large numbers of literal creationist Christians amply demonstrates. The argument you keep bringing up about metaphors is a red herring; no-one ever claimed that a literal interpretation should take every last metaphor or allusion as literal truth. Not even the most moronic YEC would be so stupid as to claim that. This is one reason for my annoyance; I know that! Anyone with as much as half a brain would know that! I never intended to imply that. Yet you keep explaining it to me. It's patronising.I was talking about Genesis. In fact, I was only really talking about Genesis 1. Millions of people believe in a literal (as in bloody literal) Genesis 1. Waffle about parables is irrelevant.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Kbertsche, the only person who has shown any signs of being confused about what I meant is you. You are not helping make things clearer. You are making them ever murkier.Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

quote:

---

Point 2: There is a subtle difference in meaning between "untrue" and "non-historical." Parables, fairy-tales, etc. are not intended to be taken as history, so they are definitely non-historical. But I believe that to call them "untrue" is too general and vague and misleading; the term "non-historical" is clearer.

---

Then practise what you preach and go around telling people that you think Spider-Man comics are true.

---

No--"truth" is the wrong category. If I practice what I preach I would tell people that I think Spider-Man is non-historical.

quote:

---

I was trying to gently introduce achristian1985 to the idea that the Genesis creation account might not be quite all it's cracked up to be. Now you actually agree with that. You know perfectly well that Genesis 1 describes events never happened. In introducing this kind of equivocation, you are clouding the issue. I consider it important that folks like ac1985 get the message that their belief in the reliability is wrong. You are not helping. All you are doing is providing another layer of obfuscation and self/mutual deception. Typical apologetics in fact. All you are doing is engaging in special pleading for the Bible. If I had said that Spider-Man wasn't true, no-one would have batted an eyelid, but say the same about Genesis and suddenly it's all far more complicated than that...

​

Saying that Genesis might be "literal but untrue" makes my position perfectly clear. All you are doing is providing Christians with a scrap of comfort to cling onto; Genesis might describe events that never happened, but it's still true... Like I say, self-deception and mutual deception. The sort of mutual deception upon which religion depends.

---

I was not trying to equivocate, but to help you make your point in a way that can be accepted by Evangelicals. To call the Bible "untrue" is very close to calling it "errant." Evangelicals are extremely resistant to accepting error in the Bible. So if you want to communicate to them that their interpretation may be in error, it is counter-productive to also ascribe error to the Bible itself. (But perhaps your point is also that the Bible itself is in error? In which case your message will not be well-received.)

quote:

---

The majority of Christian Bible-literalists mean exactly what they say when they claim that the Bible is literally true.

​

This is a case of one definition for the theologians and another for the laity. Sophisticated (or should that be Sophistic?) apologists have their rarefied definitions of "literal" and proceed as if everyone knew what they meant and used the word the same way. In fact nothing could be further from the truth, as the large numbers of literal creationist Christians amply demonstrates.

---

Yes, many lay Christians do not understand or use the terminology correctly. That was my point. The term "evolution" likewise has one definition for scientists and another for the lay public. So do we ignore the scientific definitions on this site and allow the layman to define "evolution" simply because the laymen outnumber the scientists? Of course not. Neither should we do this with theological terms. Let's try to keep the discussions on a scholarly level. (BTW, on this score you are much better than most contributors on this site. Many here are completely ignorant of theology.)Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Hi kbertsche, Exactly your problem. You are forced, by your absurd attitude to the Bible, to describe fantastical fiction as "non-historical" where any sensible person can see that it is simply untrue. There is no Peter Parker and he was never bitten by any radioactive spider. I consider this a reductio ad absurdum of your argument. Please don't. I make my own points in my own way. Yes it is. So close that they are effectively synonyms. Which is exactly the point I was making, before you stepped in to cloud the issue. This is exactly my problem with your attitude.I know that many evangelicals won't like what I have to say. That's fine; they don't have to listen. However I know what I think, I know my own mind and I know my own arguments. You clearly don't.This resistance to the truth that you describe is exactly the problem. A resistance to even considering the idea that the Bible might be largely fictional is exactly the problem. It is dishonest, closed-minded and it is simply wrong; the Bible is largely fiction.I am not going to compromise my arguments in order to soothe the sensibilities of Christians. That may mean that I persuade fewer people, but that is the way it has to be. If I were to pander to Christian delusions (such as Biblical inerrancy) I would be watering down my true opinion. In fact, I would be lying and I refuse to do that. Well that's just tough titty for me.In actual fact, I was only asking ac1985 to consider the idea. I was not planning on being particularly insistent about it. If he asked my opinion though, I would have had to say that I do indeed consider the Bible errant (which it manifestly is) and that I do consider Genesis 1 to be untrue (which it is).If I had offered any other opinion, I would have been being dishonest. I am not willing to lie to people in order to better persuade them. I can only give my real opinion, anything else would be to patronise others.For the record, I consider this attitude that the Bible is inerrant to be an extremely harmful and actively dangerous idea. I consider your watered down version of the same to be somewhat harmful as well; it encourages a lack of intellectual honesty and encourages sophistry. Hanging onto the idea that the Bible is true even where it is clearly wrong is simply bullshit. You may not like my opinion and I may fail to persuade you with it, but I will not patronise you and others by modulating my arguments until they no longer resemble anything that I believe. I see your point, but there is a clear difference; science is based upon observable facts. Theology is composed of 100% speculation. No theologian is any better placed to make judgements about reality that any member of the laity. This is clearly not the case in biology where there is a clear objective reality to be studied. Theologians may have a more sophisticated understanding of the texts they happen to favour, but the problem comes when they attempt to apply this understanding of scripture to an understanding of reality; as theists inevitably do.I consider theology to be nothing more than a jumped-up and self-important subset of literary criticism. Yeah well, thanks, but in truth, I don't consider knowledge of theology to be an especially valuable thing. Quite the opposite really.Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

This is exactly my problem with your attitude.

​

I know that many evangelicals won't like what I have to say. That's fine; they don't have to listen. However I know what I think, I know my own mind and I know my own arguments. You clearly don't.

---

Perhaps I did not understand your argument. But it seemed to me that your main point (an errant interpretation) did not require an errant Bible. I agree with your main point, and was trying to help other Evangelicals to see it.

quote:

---

This resistance to the truth that you describe is exactly the problem. A resistance to even considering the idea that the Bible might be largely fictional is exactly the problem. It is dishonest, closed-minded and it is simply wrong; the Bible is largely fiction.

​

I am not going to compromise my arguments in order to soothe the sensibilities of Christians. That may mean that I persuade fewer people, but that is the way it has to be. If I were to pander to Christian delusions (such as Biblical inerrancy) I would be watering down my true opinion. In fact, I would be lying and I refuse to do that.

---

Perhaps I misunderstood your goal. I though you were trying to persuade Evangelicals to reconsider their interpretation of Genesis. But perhaps you are trying to attack the foundations of Christianity itself?

quote:

---

For the record, I consider this attitude that the Bible is inerrant to be an extremely harmful and actively dangerous idea. I consider your watered down version of the same to be somewhat harmful as well; it encourages a lack of intellectual honesty and encourages sophistry. Hanging onto the idea that the Bible is true even where it is clearly wrong is simply bullshit. You may not like my opinion and I may fail to persuade you with it, but I will not patronise you and others by modulating my arguments until they no longer resemble anything that I believe.

---

Here we very strongly disagree.BTW, I have not been trying to put words in your mouth, as you have accused me. Rather, I have been re-wording the core of your arguments in a way that I (and other Evangelicals) can more easily agree with. If you do not wish to modulate your arguments to be more persuasive to a larger audience, that is your choice. I will continue to agree with you where I can but will disagree where I must.

I was mainly trying to get ac1985 to realise that the order of creation presented in Gen 1 could not be reconciled with the fossil record. The comments that sparked your interest ("Did you ever consider that it might be literal and allegorical? Or that it might be literal but simply untrue?") were simply an attempt to challenge ac1985's apparent certainty about how the Bible should be interpreted. We are all entitled to our opinions about how a particular passage should be interpreted, but no-one has the authority or the right to claim certain knowledge. Both. Depends which day you catch me on. Ultimately, my attitude is one of atheism, even anti-theism. I don't expect anyone to make the jump from evangelical Christianity overnight though. One step at a time...I should probably also mention that I don't have any particular hostility to Christianity as compared to other faiths. My problem is with faith itself, with all religions, not just Christianity. I happen to come from what you might describe as a Christian culture though, so it's where my attention ends up. I know you're not trying to do that, that's just how it comes across. Great! That's how it should be.I have to say that I believe there is a place for all kinds of voices when opposing creationism. Atheists, agnostics, theistic evolutionists, those hostile to the Bible and those who are sympathetic all have their place. This plurality of voices is essential; I may persuade some people, you may persuade others, but it is essential that we all remain true to our core values. I could perhaps persuade more people away from creationism by appealing to theistic evolution or a wholly allegorical Genesis, but I can't do that. I can make people aware that such views are out there, but I can't advocate them because I don't believe them.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod