Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 63253

Some theistic (and secular) evolutionists have argued that the 'days' mentioned in the creation account in Genesis are 'metaphorical' or 'symbolic' and not meant to be taken literally.

Yet, Moses writes in Exodus 20:11 -

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

So, are we supposed to work for the alleged billions of years some
evolutionists claim it took GOD to create the universe and life, and then rest AFTER those billions of years????

Obviously, the days in Genesis are meant LITERALLY.

Also, if Adam and Eve were merely 'symbolic' of humankind and not literal human beings, why does the Bible give their lineage down to Jesus???

Obviously, Adam and Eve were literal people.

knight-in-black-leather, IMDB 63 Comments [6/16/2009 2:06:26 PM]
Fundie Index: 50
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
fluffeh

May I be the first to state the bleedin' obvious?

Bible stories referring to bible stories do not make the bible stories true.

6/16/2009 2:24:02 PM

WMDKitty

Idiot.

6/16/2009 2:24:59 PM

dpareja

And you're so close...

6/16/2009 2:25:19 PM

CailinBan

Sigh ...

Genesis is stupid and irrational no matter if you take literal days or metaphorical ones. You've seen one of the flaws in the metaphorical day argument - well done. But that doesn't mean the literal days belief is right.

And the Bible just made up names, doesn't mean it's right.

6/16/2009 2:27:06 PM



See they claim it's metaphorical to make their bible make sense with what they actually know to be true about the earth. You don't need such crutches thanks to not knowing enough about the earth to understand how wrong your claims are.

6/16/2009 2:27:27 PM

Got Mayhem?

OBVIOUSLY.
Why didn't anyone notice that before? Pure genious....absolute genious.
/sarcasm.

6/16/2009 2:27:31 PM

Max W.

His theology is consistent, and coherent...but his sanity...not so much.

6/16/2009 2:34:41 PM

Jezebel's Evil Sister

"...Also, if Adam and Eve were merely 'symbolic' of humankind and not literal human beings,why does the Bible give their lineage down to Jesus??? ..."

I have a couple of better questions:

1. Why are there two conflicting accounts of creation in Genesis?

2. Why are there two conflicting genealogies for Jesus in the New Testament?

Must have been a two-for-one sale to attract dense, gullible customers - and it worked. Pure marketing genius!

6/16/2009 2:36:13 PM

DarkfireTaimatsu

Also, if Adam and Eve were merely 'symbolic' of humankind and not literal human beings, why does the Bible give their lineage down to Jesus???

Obviously, Adam and Eve were literal people.


Because Jesus wasn't a literal person either. Any fictional character can be related to another.

6/16/2009 2:46:50 PM

r3volution

so...jesus was inbred?

6/16/2009 2:49:57 PM

Kinderklein

"why does the Bible give their lineage down to Jesus?"

It has to be done in order to fulfill one of the requirements for the Messiah.
No lineage, no true Messiah.

6/16/2009 3:12:39 PM

FMG

We have civilisations older than Adam and Eve. We have civilisations older than the flood.

Its bloody stupid.

6/16/2009 3:14:46 PM

GodotIsWaiting4U

That's great, but you still haven't proven that the stories in Genesis are true. In fact, you've done a great deal to debunk them.

Nice job breaking it, hero.

6/16/2009 3:24:24 PM



if Adam and Eve were merely 'symbolic' of humankind and not literal human beings, why does the Bible give their lineage down to Jesus???

It give three different lineages. Your move, Knight.

6/16/2009 3:47:23 PM

Ozzie

Well if Moses says so . . .

6/16/2009 4:00:06 PM

Gawd

Obviously

6/16/2009 4:04:48 PM

Old Viking

Moses didn't write anything. There was no Moses. There was no David, Solomon, Elisha, Isaiah, and on and on. There was no glorious Jewish kingdom. And there was no historical Jesus. There is not a shred of objective evidence supporting any of it. As to Genesis, if you are incapable of distinguishing between myth and reality, it's your problem. There's little we can do about it.

6/16/2009 4:05:30 PM

Marc

For the same reason that Harry Potter's parents have names. The authors who invented them made up a past, as well.

6/16/2009 4:16:28 PM

tracer

"Obviously, the days in Genesis are meant LITERALLY."


Yeah! And the "evening came and morning" reiterations are to be taken LITERALLY too! Along with the fact that the first three happened before the sun was created.

Woops....

6/16/2009 4:34:32 PM

Mudflappus

Say there knight-in-black-leather, I noticed there aren't a lot of people copying your signature. How's that working for ya?

6/16/2009 4:48:38 PM

Kat

Consider at least this. The Bible was put together when modern science was virtually non-existant so of course there will be stories to explain the origins of Earth.

It's kind of like the Greek and Roman idea of the story behind lightning. The Greeks and Romans thought that the head god Zeus/Jupiter,Jove was personally throwing them, but we know how lightning is made and strikes earth right knight-in-black-leather?


Wait a minute. Nevermind, don't answer that question.

6/16/2009 4:49:16 PM

Grigadil

Tolkien had a much higher level of consistency in his works, even after he died.

The baa-bull is just one shitty fanfic on top of another.

6/16/2009 4:49:34 PM

Adrian

GodotIsWaiting4U

That's great, but you still haven't proven that the stories in Genesis are true. In fact, you've done a great deal to debunk them.

Nice job breaking it, hero.


Would you happen to be a fellow tvtropes-addict? ^^

6/16/2009 4:57:13 PM

Osiris

This guy is more or less correct. The Bible treats the events of Genesis as being literal events.

Of course the events in Genesis are demonstratively wrong and so the Bible and Christianity, is wrong on it's fundamental level.

6/16/2009 5:44:46 PM

raindrops

Obviously you failed to realize what is obvious.

6/16/2009 6:37:19 PM
1 2 3