A question for accommodationalists

[gbob]

Mitch, I didn’t say He would solve all our problems. So you are suggesting that if we expect God to solve all our problems, God will send plagues on us? I thought in your view God didn’t do that sort of thing.

Mitch, I am a walking miracle. I am probably 20 standard deviations out on the mortality chart for what I was diagnosed with in 2003. My new oncologist here raised me with her colleagues because I am still alive when I should be dead.

I will paraphrase you. If Christianity pushes the insane idea that God can do nothing in the here and now, then all the miracles the Apostles performed didn’t actually happen and pushes the insane idea that in this world only material/physical effects are available to us, then we are we are nothing more than philosophical materialists who believe irrationally in an undetectable God…

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@gbob

So you are suggesting that if we expect God to solve all our problems, God will send plagues on us? I thought in your view God didn’t do that sort of thing.

The whole point is that the expected and norm is that things (like disease or storms) operate according to natural laws and not the whims of a deity. Therefore Christianity is not any kind of substitute for science and medicine. BUT science and medicine does NOT have all the answers. It does NOT define the limits of reality. So when we have done everything we can then we turn to God and leave it in His hands, NOT because we can EXPECT God to make things go away but because we trust in Him whether we get a miracle or not.

@gbob

Mitch, I am a walking miracle. I am probably 20 standard deviations out on the mortality chart for what I was diagnosed with in 2003. My new oncologist here raised me with her colleagues because I am still alive when I should be dead.

And I believe you. Miracles happen. But you cannot expect them to happen because then they wouldn’t be miracles anymore but part of the laws of nature.

@gbob

If Christianity pushes the insane idea that God can do nothing

False dichotomy. This is not the opposite of Christianity pushing the idea that God will do everything.

1. God will do everything. So you don’t need science or medicine.
2. God can do everything. So you should ask God after science and medicine have tried.
3. God can do nothing. So do not bother asking God for anything.

Both 1 and 3 are wrong. Number 2 is correct and it is PRECISELY what I have said every time despite the deception perpetrated by gbob. And it is number 1 more than number 3 which will empower atheists and communists against Christianity.

[gbob]

@mitchellmckain

The whole point is that the expected and norm is that things (like disease or storms) operate according to natural laws and not the whims of a deity.

you suggest this as the right approach: God can do everything. So you should ask God after science and medicine have tried.

But you have clearly stated that God doesn’t violate natural law, several times. It would seem to me that my cancer is following natural law of unconstrained division and growth. Since god doesn’t violate natural law, asking him for anything at this point would be an exercise in futility according to what I understand of your views. Why ask if he can’t do anything, e. g. He can’t violate natural law?

I don’t have much more to say about this to you. It is clear that your God and mine have very different characteristics. That isn’t to say you are wrong; it might be me who is wrong. This is one of those areas that is not subject to observational verification I spoke of above. But it is clear that we don’t speak our theology from common assumptions.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@gbob

But you have clearly stated that God doesn’t violate natural law, several times.

Correct. And I don’t think he has. The point is that a lot more is often possible within the laws of nature than we often think. Simply consider what medicine can do now compared to 2000 years ago and without breaking a single law of nature. Now consider comparing this with what medicine will be able to do 2000 years from now, again without breaking a single law of nature. Yes God can do a lot without breaking the laws of nature. And one of the reasons God will not cure everyone’s cancer is because God will NOT break the laws of nature. Why? Because the laws of nature are more important than you getting whatever toy, candy, comfort, or easy answer you happen to want at any moment.

@gbob

Since god doesn’t violate natural law, asking him for anything at this point would be an exercise in futility according to what I understand of your views.

Which just shows how little you understand my views! It is NOT an exercise in futility. But it is also not a solution with any kind of guarantee either.

@gbob

Why ask if he can’t do anything, e. g. He can’t violate natural law?

Because turning to God is the best answer to desperation compared to other kinds of things people often turn to.

[gbob]

@mitchellmckain

Because turning to God is the best answer to desperation compared to other kinds of things people often turn to.

I am not desperate! I am quite content if I live or die. I am not so desperate for life that I will ruin the time I have left. So, If God is just an imaginary psychologist/teddy bear, to salve our desperation when materialism fails us, He still isn’t worth much in a situation like mine–asking for help when science fails. I am not sure you understand your views. lol Take care Mitch

[T_aquaticus]

@gbob

Sigh, it isn’t hard. Hebrews 6:18 says “it is impossible for God to lie”. Lie means not telling the truth. Fables are not true. period.

That’s an equivocation fallacy. People aren’t lying when they tell a fable. They are telling a story. Those aren’t the same thing. Even Jesus spoke in parables.

@gbob

I don’t attack them for accepting science. I attack them for illogically saying the early genesis is untrue but then the Bible is still worthy to be believed.

They are saying that those parts of Genesis are fables, myths, and allegories. They are not saying Genesis is untrue. Again, those are not the same thing.

@gbob

Trying to use the logical fallacy of ‘Argument from Authority’, which is a formal logical fallacy in my grad school books on logic, is not a good argument.

You are using an equivocation fallacy, trying to draw a false equivalence between lies and fables.

[gbob]

@T_aquaticus

That’s an equivocation fallacy. People aren’t lying when they tell a fable. They are telling a story. Those aren’t the same thing. Even Jesus spoke in parables.

This old canard about Jesus speaking parables is like Jason in the movies–it never seems to die and nothing can kill it. Parables were labeled as such. Secondly, Jesus’s parables didn’t involve anything other than events that could have been real. (I repeat myself here from above), He didn’t claim in those stories that there were cyclops out there ready to squash the hero of his fables. He didn’t claim super powers for his characters, and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man says nothing observable because that is about another world. We can’t proclaim it true or false. But if Jesus had spoken of cyclops or hydra etc, then we could say that IF Jesus is God, he is lying.

But Genesis, is written in a straight forward manner, as is the Fall and the Flood, especially the Fall and the Flood, yet everyone seems to want them to be fables as well. I repeat myself again but two quotes seem to capture the logical problem with doing what you prefer. First it makes us a laughing stock:

“If we are to listen to many expositors of no mean authority, we must believe that what seems so clearly defined in Genesisas if very great pains had been taken that there should be no possibility of mistakeis not the meaning of the text at all. The account is divided into periods that we may make just as long or as short as convenience requires. We are also to understand that it is consistent with the original text to believe that the most complex plants and animals may have been evolved by natural processes, lasting for millions of years, out of structureless rudiments. A person who is not a Hebrew scholar can only stand aside and admire the marvelous flexibility of a language which admits of such diverse interpretations.” Thomas H. Huxley, “Lectures on Evolution” in Agnosticism and Christianity, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1992), p. 14

Secondly saying the Fall is a fable undermines the reason for the Cross, but further more, NOT finding evolution in the scripture undermines the foundation for the payment for sin.

“If all the animals and man have been evolved in this ascendant manner, then there would have been no first parents, no Eden, and no Fall. And if there had been no Fall, the entire historical fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement, upon which current teaching bases Christian emotion and morality, collapses like a house of cards.” H. G. Wells, The Outline of History, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1961), p. 776-777

To those who think the Fall applied to a village or a group of early humans, why didn’t God simply inspire the writer to say that? Again, this is a case where some people change what the Bible says, to make it say something more comfortable to them, without explaining why God simply didn’t say what they think is the case? After all, when God started inspiring the writer, however inspiration happens, God could have had him write that the Fall happened to a group of early men, He didn’t and this again creates a tension between what God could have inspired, what he did inspire and what some think is true. To me, this undermines all reasons to believe Christianity. If God is so impotent as to be unable to get a writer to say the Fall was a group event rather than a single pair then He isn’t very powerful is he? This applies also to the genetic Adam and Eve. God could have inspired the writer to say that God spoke to Adam and Eve, singling them out, like he did to Abram, but he didn’t. Why? Why go through the dirt to Adam; rib to Eve rigmarole. when he could have inspired something different, more to their liking?

So, I would disagree strongly with you T when you say:

They are saying that those parts of Genesis are fables, myths, and allegories. They are not saying Genesis is untrue.

Really? A story about a single pair becomes a story about a group, and the snake is removed from the picture? This isn’t making it the account a fable. We don’t say the fable of Sisyphus is about how soccer started. We take the fables like Sisyphus and just don’t treat it as anything other than a myth that couldn’t have happened. We don’t change them into something unrecognizable. We treat Biblical’ myths and fables differently than we treat Greek fables; we change the former into some other story but we don’t bother to do that with Greek fables.

What I am not using is an equivocation. When God says he can’t lie, that means God can’t tell untruth. Again, I repeat myself from above, when God speaks on nature, we can make logical conclusions about whether what he said matches nature or not. If it doesn’t then it is an untruth, meaning God told an untruth.

Now you say Genesis 1 is a fable, I presume you say that of the Fall and Flood. That is your assumption. You have presented ZERO evidence to prove your case that it is a fable. What could you present to claim Genesis 1 et al are fables? Only the fact that YOUR interpretation makes it mis-match observational science. But my interpretation of Genesis 1 doesn’t have that problem. Thus your interp can’t be considered proof that genesis 1 is a fable but could be considered evidence that your interpretation of it is wrong.

[T_aquaticus]

@gbob

This old canard about Jesus speaking parables is like Jason in the movies–it never seems to die and nothing can kill it. Parables were labeled as such. Secondly, Jesus’s parables didn’t involve anything other than events that could have been real. (I repeat myself here from above), He didn’t claim in those stories that there were cyclops out there ready to squash the hero of his fables. He didn’t claim super powers for his characters, and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man says nothing observable because that is about another world. We can’t proclaim it true or false. But if Jesus had spoken of cyclops or hydra etc, then we could say that IF Jesus is God, he is lying.

Not all parables in the New Testament are labelled as such. For example, read Matthew 7:24-27 which contains the parable of building houses on sand and stone. Nowhere does it say overtly that it is a parable, but it is easy to understand that it is.

I am also confused why you say that a fictional but realistic story isn’t lying, but a fictional and unrealistic parable is lying. Why is that?

@gbob

But Genesis, is written in a straight forward manner, as is the Fall and the Flood, especially the Fall and the Flood, yet everyone seems to want them to be fables as well.

Genesis doesn’t seem straightforward at all, at least to me. It reads a lot like poetry, and a lot like mythology, allegory, and fable. I guess we just have different opinions on that one.

@gbob

Secondly saying the Fall is a fable undermines the reason for the Cross, but further more, NOT finding evolution in the scripture undermines the foundation for the payment for sin.

Jesus said that all have sinned and need saving because of it. I know the question of Original Sin is a big one in Christian theology, but it has always seemed moot for the simple fact that everyone has sinned on their own. It’s not as if any of us are perfect, and the only thing going against us is what our distant ancestors did.

@gbob

Again, this is a case where some people change what the Bible says, to make it say something more comfortable to them, without explaining why God simply didn’t say what they think is the case?

What is more comfortable to you is a direct historical account. You seem to asking why Genesis wasn’t written in a way that you find more comfortable.

@gbob

We don’t say the fable of Sisyphus is about how soccer started. We take the fables like Sisyphus and just don’t treat it as anything other than a myth that couldn’t have happened. We don’t change them into something unrecognizable. We treat Biblical’ myths and fables differently than we treat Greek fables; we change the former into some other story but we don’t bother to do that with Greek fables.

When someone recites one of Aesop’s Fables, do we call them a liar?

@gbob

Now you say Genesis 1 is a fable, I presume you say that of the Fall and Flood. That is your assumption. You have presented ZERO evidence to prove your case that it is a fable.

There’s ample evidence for the human population being a continuous population over the last 200,000 years or so. There is plenty of geologic evidence demonstrating the lack of a global flood in the last 10,000 years, of the sort described in Genesis. We also have rather obvious borrowing from other cultures, such as Noah’s story being a near copy of the flood tale in the Enuma Elish which was part of Babylonian culture. Given the ties between the Jewish and Babylonian people, it isn’t surprising to see some cross cultural pollination.

It reads like a myth to me. Of course, you are free to disagree with me.

[gbob]

@T_aquaticus

There’s ample evidence for the human population being a continuous population over the last 200,000 years or so. There is plenty of geologic evidence demonstrating the lack of a global flood in the last 10,000 years, of the sort described in Genesis. We also have rather obvious borrowing from other cultures, such as Noah’s story being a near copy of the flood tale in the Enuma Elish which was part of Babylonian culture. Given the ties between the Jewish and Babylonian people, it isn’t surprising to see some cross cultural pollination.

Oh jiminy. T you really need to know the views of the person you are talking to. I don’t believe in a global flood. so the above is wasting my time. There is no evidence of a global flood for the past billion years.

You wrote:

Jesus said that all have sinned and need saving because of it. I know the question of Original Sin is a big one in Christian theology, but it has always seemed moot for the simple fact that everyone has sinned on their own. It’s not as if any of us are perfect, and the only thing going against us is what our distant ancestors did.

the origin of sin is not a moot question. If God created us as sinners, to sin, then He is responsible for all the terrible things we do. How can God condemn anyone for what he made us to do? That would be unjust, thus turning god into an unjust God as well as an evil God. But if God created us in fellowship with Him, then our choice to sin, or the original pair’s choice, which affected us, does leave God with less guilt for the Evil in this world. So, no, this isn’t a minor question. It is a foundational issue for Christian theology.

Genesis doesn’t seem straightforward at all, at least to me. It reads a lot like poetry, and a lot like mythology, allegory, and fable. I guess we just have different opinions on that one.

I think you mean Genesis 1. It doesn’t read like poetry at all. It shares none of the traits of the Psalms, the only truly known Hebrew poetry. Of Genesis 2-11, that is written as if it is history–it isn’t poetical any more than Genesis 12 is.

you wrote:

I am also confused why you say that a fictional but realistic story isn’t lying, but a fictional and unrealistic parable is lying. Why is that?

You are making me repeat a whole lot of stuff I already said in posts above. I will cut and paste my reasoning again from post 219:

Let us differentiate two categories of knowledge. Facts, and Moral/philosophical/theological. The former are subject to observation and refutation. Things offered as facts are subject to what Mitch calls, black and white thinking, which I call logical thinking or the application of logic to the issue. Geology means ‘earth logic’; biology means ‘life logic’, etc.

Statements made about nature are subject to being judged as true or false. If I say, that gravity attracts with the third power of the distance, that statement would be absolutely false–observationally false. Gravity attracts with the square of the distance as thousands of observations attest.

Moral/philosophical/theological statements are not subject to objective verification. We can’t verify that there is a heaven, or that God loves us, or that we should not steal, murder, or worship other gods. There is nothing observational we can say about those issues. Thus we can’t say if they are true or false, and Mitch will be happy to hear that black and white thinking doesn’t apply to this category of statements.

Now, we have a theological statement in Hebrews 6:18 which says “it is impossible for God to lie”. If God said nothing to us, we would not be able to verify this. But if God speaks on some description of Nature, then we can compare that statement with what we know of Nature. If God had ever said that gravity attracts at the third power of the distance, we could clearly say, that it is possible for God to lie. Should God have ever said, 'Rabbits don’t exist" then again, we could claim the falsity of the claim 'God can’t lie".
But if all God ever speaks on is on moral/philosophical/theological things, Like don’t steal, then we could never know whether that was a true or false statement. We can’t know if God is lying to us about us being saved through faith. There isn’t any way to verify this statement on this side of death.

With this as background, When God in Genesis 1 speaks on how Nature was created, then He gives us loads of chances to verify the statement that He doesn’t lie. If we say Genesis 1 is false, then we have implicitly stated that God lied, because God is the only speaker in Genesis 1

[T_aquaticus]

@gbob

Oh jiminy. T you really need to know the views of the person you are talking to. I don’t believe in a global flood. so the above is wasting my time.

Then you have already changed flood narrative.

@gbob

But if God created us in fellowship with Him, then our choice to sin, or the original pair’s choice, which affected us, does leave God with less guilt for the Evil in this world.

Why would this require a literal Adam and Eve?

@gbob

I think you mean Genesis 1. It doesn’t read like poetry at all.

I strongly disagree. There are multiple stanzas, each ending with God seeing that his work was good.

@gbob

You are making me repeat a whole lot of stuff I already said in posts above.

I guess we have very different outlooks. I think truth can be conveyed in myths and fables. You don’t. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@gbob

This old canard about Jesus speaking parables is like Jason in the movies–it never seems to die and nothing can kill it.

There’s a reason for that. Truth can be pretty stubborn - even when you get tired of hearing it … even kicking, railing, and screaming as one does.

[gbob]

@T_aquaticus

Then you have already changed flood narrative.

No, I changed the interpretation of one word, ‘eretz’ which YECs interpret as Planet Earth, the most common meaning is ‘land’ or ‘country’ or 'ground. Only 4 times is it called ‘world’.

translates as “land” 1543 times, “earth” 712 times, “country” 140 times, “ground” 98 times, “world” four times, “way” three times, “common” once, “field” once, “nations” once, and “wilderness

Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

This doesn’t sound like the Bible is describing a global flood, given that the Hebrews didn’t know of planet earth.

Using this the verse should read. “…do bring a flood of waters upon the earth (meaning dirt or land)”
“…do bring a flood of waters upon the Land”
or “…do bring a flood of waters upon the ground”

This doesn’t change the Bible, it changes away from a false interpretation of the Bible.

If you would actually look at what I said, I didn’t disagree that ‘truth’ can be conveyed by fables. What I said was Natural Truth, ( objective truth about Nature) can’t be conveyed in non-factual ways. The Truth that we should be nice to each other or not be narcissistic can be conveyed by fables. But they are not statements about objective reality.

[gbob]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

There’s a reason for that. Truth can be pretty stubborn - even when you get tired of hearing it … even kicking, railing, and screaming as one does.

Lol, your statement can equally be turned around to your position. Obviously you think you are correct, but, you know? you just might not be correct. It is possible for you to be wrong. Therefore to view this in a one sided way exhibits a lack of ability to look and understand the position of the other guy.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@gbob

It is possible for you to be wrong. Therefore to view this in a one sided way exhibits a lack of ability to look and understand the position of the other guy.

That is indeed a distinct possibility. Especially regarding just myself. But it’s even a distinct possibility (though somewhat less so) for all the company I choose to keep in choosing such views. Popular opinions - even among the ‘respectable’ is still no guarantee to truth. But the company that has the most history of critical self-reflection is usually the best company to seek out. I think we probably agree there. I have a lot of respect for the impressive life of work and research you have invested in and freely share here.

[gbob]

I have a lot of respect for the impressive life of work and research you have invested in and freely share here.

Mervin, I appreciate that. We do agree on keeping company with people who have self-reflection. I am not sure we would agree on who that is. If we find ourselves in a crowd where everyone believes the same thing, we are in an mental Ising model. Most people won’t know what an Ising model is. Ernest Ising was a physicist who studied phase transitions and he came up with a model that explains why when metal cools, certain regions of the metal point one direction magnetically and other regions point the other direction. It seems that the biggest decider for a molecule about which way its dipole moment will point is the direction the crowd of molecules around it point. Thus when it attaches to other molecules to form a solid, it points its dipole moment the direction its neighbors do.

We often call this the bubble. It is why the coasts of this country are liberal and the interior of the country tents to be more conservative. If we don’t hear alternatives from those around us, we often don’t think out of the box. Why? Because when we do, we find our selves overwhelmed with criticism from those around us and the tendency is that we don’t want to stand out or stand alone.

Thus, a crowd of people with self-reflection all thinking the same things is not a good place for new ideas to develop. The peer review system is too often used to keep alternative ideas out of print–I have a whole list of examples of this happening. This is done because the editors believe the new idea is just wrong and want nothing to do with it. Take the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction. Belousov tried to publish some amazing results he saw in his flask of chemicals which changed color periodically and endlessly. The editors said his results were simply against the laws of chemisty and thus there had to be a mistake and Belousov was just wrong. Belousov was crushed and left science because of this. But his reaction actually follows the mathematics created by Alan Turing which describes how Nature creates animal coat patterns. Belousov published his work in an unpeer reviewed medical journal and as I said, left science because he couldn’t stand up against the crowd. The Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction was really the first indication of chaotic behavior in nature.

One advantage I have had in life is that I didn’t run with the theological crowd. I first ran with YECs but then ran with atheists, learning their criticisms of our religion. I had a heck of a time getting my Mediterranean flood article published. A web debate was set up between me and an expert in the Mesopotamian flood view. I kept pointing out how his views neither matched science nor the Bible and kept pointing out that mine matched geology, physics and the description of the event in the Bible. Only after that I shamed the editor, who had watched the debate, by telling him they would publish flood theories that violate the laws of physics, but not publish one that lived within those laws. Think about it, how is a boat floating on a stream flowing south at 5-20 mph in a supposedly major flooding event in the Mesopotamian basin (for which there is zero geologic evidence) supposed to go upstream to Turkey? Did Noah have a motor boat? This guy I debated with said they used poles to go upstream, but 8 humans can’t generate enough energy for that. We can sustain at our most intense efforts about 75 watts.

If I had run with the theological crowd, they would have done what yall do–tell me how wrong I am, stop thinking that way. I ran with a very creative group of geoscientists who found a billion barrels of oil with me over my career, often going against conventional wisdom. I got fired once for being a YEC(yes I was misguided but my work always got good performance reviews. I think I was the highest rated guy who was fired in 1986). I was challenging conventional wisdom as did other guys I worked with. One of my bosses, an atheist, got fired for advocating producing oil from shale. He went out and became a gazillionaire. Another of my bosses was involved in developing horizontal drilling used in shale production. He too was fired–he didn’t fare quite as well. My business partner holds the first patent for modeling fluid flow through oil reservoirs. He too got very wealthy and I will eat lunch with him today. My point is, challenging conventional wisdom is costly, but fun, and it is intellectually stimulating–one has to know a whole lot about a whole lot. I wouldn’t trade the path of my life for anyone else’s.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

gbob. No. No. I would never dream of challenging anyone who didn’t ask me to do so - as you did. Especially in matters of religion, unless they were being offensive to a vulnerable person. I hope.

[fmiddel]

@gbob

One of the points I am trying to make in all this is that if there are accurate statements/observations in Genesis 1 then at the very least God did NOT accommodate that to the supposed ignorance of those people

Your presumption seems to me that “those people” were absolutely and completely ignorant, so that any accuracy in the text whatsoever is evidence of lack of accommodation. I’m not sure that’s a legitimate presumption.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@gbob

at the very least God did NOT accommodate that to the supposed ignorance of those people.

@fmiddel

Your presumption seems to me that “those people” were absolutely and completely ignorant,

There may be a glitch in your display that you did not see that.

[fmiddel]

@Dale

There may be a glitch in your display that you did not see that.

No, the argument seems to me that “anything historically or scientifically accurate in the original text indicates lack of accommodation.” But why would the original readers be (supposedly) so ignorant of anything historical or scientific? Surely they knew something. I’m saying historical and/or scientific accuracy vs. accommodation is a false dichotomy.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

The point was NOT that people only turn to God out of desperation (I certainly said no such thing) but only that when people are desperate because the usual sort of things don’t work then I think it is better to turn to God rather than other things like sending out signals to UFOs or making deals with the devil for example.

@gbob

So, If God is just an imaginary psychologist/teddy bear, to salve our desperation when materialism fails us

Always these false dichotomy black and white extremes with you over and over and over again. God is not imaginary but God is also not the magic man solution to all problems for everyone either. Reliable for getting what we want? NO! Reliable for accomplishing HIS will in our lives? Yes. Something we can control? NO! Someone we can respect and who loves us? Yes.

@gbob

I am not sure you understand your views.

I am not sure you understand your views. All I see are irrational knee jerk reactions and nothing thought through clearly or consistently. Everything I have been saying is ALL about consistency. God making the laws of nature and remaining consistent with them because He made them for a reason instead of going willy-nilly every which way according to whatever some religion pusher wants to make Him dance as his personal performing monkey.

@T_aquaticus

They are not saying Genesis is untrue. Again, those are not the same thing.

Indeed! We are saying that confusing Genesis with a science text or modern objective history text is idiotic. The book and its writers clearly had no such intention for Genesis to be any such thing.

@T_aquaticus

You are using an equivocation fallacy, trying to draw a false equivalence between lies and fables.

Yep, and other related fallacies such as false dichotomy.

@Mervin_Bitikofer

That is indeed a distinct possibility.

Nothing is more reasonable than the suggestion that one might be wrong but for the same reason, the idea the you are right about everything and everyone else is wrong about everything doesn’t sound very reasonable at all.

I certainly see no reason to go to the extreme of discounting all of Genesis as fictional metaphor when the book clearly has considerable historical intent even if it is not exclusively or objectively historical. For me it is about maximizing the meaning of the book and insisting on literal interpretations contrary to the objective scientific evidence can only turn it into nothing more than meaningless babble. Likewise editing the text to make the events millions of years ago just to make a few dubious details line up can also only serve to make its contents less significant rather than more so.