Nice NSFW blog title!
+ I Love the forum username too!
1st comment: no comments!? What's the point? To me your arguments don't seem fully honed, so one would think you'd allow questioning to enable you to improve on them.
BIBLICAL REFUTATION OF OLD EARTH CREATIONISM AND THEISTIC EVOLUTION
Creationism isn't my field of expertise. I'm one of those in the majority, I understand, that interpret Genesis as poetry. I don't think it follows that because the word
yom was used in two places means they had the same meaning. I can't see how this follows. context is everything.
"The problem with this line of reasoning is that it assumes that the creation account is true in order to prove that the creation account is true. This is obviously circular reasoning and therefore invalid."
OECs fit their interpretation to scientific knowledge. They're still being literalist but I think suggesting that they're saying the creation account proves the creation account is incorrect.
SCIENTIFIC REFUTATION OF OLD EARTH CREATIONISM AND THEISTIC EVOLUTION
"Apologists argue that God is somehow immune from the same argument being applied to him because he is "outside of time". Not only is this not supported by logic, science,
or even the Bible; it also logically entails that God could not have created the universe. This is because the existence of time is a prerequisite not only for any act of creation but for any action whatsoever."
In the beginning, God<snip> God, or literally.. "I am". "I am", meaning "I just am". Existence outside of time. Why is an other dimensional reality illogical? Many great thinkers, especially scientists, disagree with you I think. Anyone agree?
BIBLICAL REFUTATION OF GOD'S HONESTY
"God clearly tells Adam and Eve that they will die that same day if they eat from the tree of knowledge. When they do eat from it they do not die for several centuries."
LOL
Well that sorta proves you can only take literalism so far! My view is that this is blindingly obviously referring to spiritual death and not actual physical death. Surely every Christian, even literalists have to accept that one. They'd be nieve to the point of denial if not, and not possibly Christian at the same moment.
" Some creationists try to avoid admitting that God is a liar by claiming that Adam and Eve were created immortal and that they became mortal by eating from the tree of knowledge. This can easily be refuted by the second quote above which states that God did not want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life because they would then become immortal and that would make them equal to God. "
Wha!? No.. Having the knowledge of good and evil does not equal immortality or God likeness in that sense. It simply refers to the knowledge of good and evil.
You are correct in that Genesis doesn't differentiate between physical and spiritual death. It's perfect that you point out that Adam and Eve didn't actually die. Death occurred yet they didn't die, is the clear statement. It makes no sense until you factor in spiritual health, which is after all, the subject of religion. You call it verbal gymnastics. I say that could be another name for it.
Nice blog
![[Image: cinjin_banner_border.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=oggtheclever.com%2Fcinjin_banner_border.jpg)
