Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Oh...dmz...that is segovius' clever way of saying that you are a "nut job loonie"...because trying to actually prove that it wasn't as you say is too difficult.
Well, it is too difficult - nothing could prove it to him, he;s too far gone.
Besides, I know nothing of science so in a way you're right. I prefer theology - speaking of which, could you please explain the following Genesis contradictions to me and how they can possibly be indicative of a literal Biblical truth:
Genesis 8:4 states the following: "And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat."
But this is contradicted by the very next verse, Genesis 8:5 which says: "And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth [month], on the first [day] of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen."
So how could the Ark rest on the mountaintops on the seventh month when the mountaintops were not visible until the tenth month?
Likewise Genesis 8:13 has it that: "And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first [month], the first [day] of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry."
Ie, that the ground was dry on the first day of the first month. But again, the very next verse blatantly contradicts this - Genesis 8:14 says "And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried".
So which is it? How is it possible to maintain a belief in the literal nature of Scripture when these blatant contradictions point to the fact that it is not and cannot be a document intended to be taken in a literal sense.
To refuse to acknowledge this AND to twist facts from science that we know are non-contradictory is a form of intellectual dishonesty imo.