You added the word "listen". It's not there. The KJV has too many errors for me to use regularly. I don't understand your idea that I try to "dodge from having to deal with the concept of literalism." I accept God's Word as written. Some is historical. Some is poetry. Some has metaphors. The context helps those who are serious understand Him.
I see you didn't read the story correctly. It was the chief. Perhaps you do the same thing with God's Word. I am a presupposionalist. That means my world view starts with the idea God's Word is correct and anything that deviates is incorrect to one degree or another.
You are accepting the Big Bang as accepted science. Take a look at google and discover how many evolutionist do not accept it.
No, I did
not add the word "listen". Several translations have done that
for me. At your prompting, which I suppose is sure to come, I will have to do a study in the Hebrew text to see whether that is incorrect. Please forgive my tendency to not read you as well as I do God's word - my point about your story was not lost, and you know it.
As for your claim of being a "presupposionalist"......I suppose I am that also, although I have never used the term. But you go beyond that as a Genesis literalist. I believe the Word is correct, but I also acknowledge the possibility that it isn't necessarily all literal and complete detail. My understanding of how that works does not challenge any of the Message.
Yes - I accept the Big Bang....until that is somehow disproven. What you don't seem to realize is that the reason so many evolutionists (atheists, actually) don't accept it is that it blows their "eternal cosmos" idea - which was necessary for their "chance" argument - out of existence (now some of them make an appeal to "multiverse"). When it first came to light, they attempted to mitigate it with the idea that the universe is continually expanding and collapsing in never ending cycles. Even that has been shown
by scientific discovery to be incorrect. Those silly scientist who won't just take the Biblical text as literal history now know that the universe has a beginning and is expanding at an accelerated rate. There is no sign of the supposed "endless cycle". I find that exciting - and useful when talking to atheists.
Now, the atheist position is that presupposing Biblical truth is hostile to scientific discovery. I disagree, and propose the opposite - that presupposing no God blinds the atheistic scientist and impedes discovery. My belief that many of the details of God's creation are discoverable (over time) is based on study of the Bible and on my faith, not only in his saving grace, but also in his desire for us to
know him, even in life. Frankly, I find the wonders of molecular biology and astrophysics to be awesome almost beyond belief, and showing evidence of a masterful Creator. Surely God could have left no such evidence if he did not desire us to discover it. And surely if he desires us to discover it, He would not allow Satan to rearrange the entire cosmos, the tiniest complex components of life, and matter itself, and everything in between so as to make it incomprehensable.
Brainwashing? That is one way we get to the point of refusing to consider ideas that challenge our own. Another is fear. Fear that our limited understanding will be destroyed by truth revealed bit by bit. Either way, hostility toward discovery based on following where the evidence leads does nothing to save the unbeliever. Arguing how God went about creating and whether his day fits in our box, to the point of denigrating and just being argumentative, is no way to win souls....in my humble opinion.
