Wow, you've thrown out a lot of presuppositions, bias, and bitterness in this polemic. It's tough to reasonably discuss these points when they're belched out in bulk.

These is a vast difference in a culture that is illiterate and one that is non-literate. One is primitive and brutish, while the other merely has never been taught to reading, as reading wasn't necessary. We can find many intelligent people through history who couldn't read, and we can find in many ancient cultures astounding knowledge of engineering, architecture, biology, astronomy, and many others of what we would call sciences. We know, for instance, that the culture of ancient Egypt was remarkably advanced, knowing about the Pyramids, mummification, sculpture, and many other skills and knowledge. This is the world Moses grew up in; we are untruthful to consider that he was ignorant.

It makes perfect sense to understand the ancient writings in the context of their culture instead of the context of ours. As you and I are writing in the context of ours (it would be quite a challenge for you or me to write in the science and culture of a world 3000 years ahead of ours), so they write in theirs. Of course society has moved on, but it doesn't twist the meaning of the Bible to interpret the way it was meant. In contrast, it twists it to try to fit it into our mindset. If we don't read it with ancient eyes, we are guilty of distorting it, and then judging it based on distortions.

The you make a colossal leap: "So for the first 90,000 years, God does not intervene." What makes you think God didn't intervene? We have no records from back then, but the record we have from Adam and Eve on is a record of God's continual and habitual intervention. The most responsible extrapolation would be to extrapolate his intervention all along the way, since the Bible reveals him to be an intervening deity.

Then you thrash out a rampage about God being callus and evil. I'd prefer to discuss these things with you rather than get bludgeoned with indictments. Here we were talking about Christians who believe in evolution, and all of a sudden God is callus and evil and lacking in evidentiary substantiation. I think maybe you have some anger issues. : )

No danger lurks when you impose our own 'cultural ideas' on Genesis. The culture of people writing it is the same culture that sacrificed animals, and that believed in alchemy, who believed in stoning people to death for adultery. These are the people who wrote these books. And to read them with 'ancient eyes' as you said means to read them the same way someone, with no real understanding of how the universe works, no knowledge of science and believes in human sacrifice. We've advanced, that's why the story was believed to be true, they were reading it with 'ancient eyes' they were simply ignorant. But we are no longer like this, society has moved on, and people trying to twist the book's meaning seems to me to be a last fleeting attempt to keep some validity of the doctrines that they fell obliged to believe in. As scientific understanding, knowledge and education increase superstitions and religious beliefs will decrease. Changing the meanings so that you can say 'if you look at it this way, it could be true' is religions last gasp of air as it drowns. Also , I'll take your claims that Evolution coincides with the Genesis story. So the first humans appeared, what 100,000 years ago? So for the first 90,000 years, God does not intervene. People killing each other, women dying in their masses during child birth, rapes, people rarely living to 40 and dying of some basic condition. So this happens, to perfectly sentient beings, who have emotions, for 90,000 years and heaven watches on, never intervening. Until 10,000 or so years ago, and that's when they decide that they should intervene. You believe in the God of the bible, who even in the story is a callus and evil being, but this is ridiculously hard to believe. But just because it's hard to morally comprehend isn't why i don't believe it, I don't believe it because there is no evidence of this God, and no evidence to suggest that this story of divine creation should be given anymore credence than any other.

> The facts remain

It's the facts that are up for interpretation. When scientists observe what seems to be a hybrid star (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/06/ ... ar-search/), they must interpret the facts to try to make sense out of it, and sometimes there are different interpretation of the facts.

I'm quite aware that just because something makes sense to me doesn't automatically grant it any merit, but neither is it automatically dismissible because it differs from the set of "facts" based on your understanding.

Fact #1: Genesis 1 is ancient, not modern, cosmology, and we must read it with "ancient" eyes.

Fact #2: Genesis 1 is not a modern scientific text, but is explaining God's relation to the cosmos. Deity pervaded the ancient world.

Fact #3: Danger lurks when we try to impose our own cultural ideas on the Genesis text.

Fact #4: ALL of the ancient cosmologies of the Near East show concern with the function of the cosmos in relation to order and chaos, not with the manufacture of material.

Fact #5: Nearly all of the creation accounts of the ancient world start their story with no operation system in place (Cf. Gn. 1.2).

In conclusion, analysts of the ancient Near Easter creation literature often observe that nothing material is actually made in these accounts. The creation of the material world was not their concern, but the ordering of it.

> You can't argue that the days represent different stages of evolution or whatever

I'm not, haven't, and won't. The days of creation indicate the seven days of temple dedication (cf. 1 Ki. 8.62-66). All ancient cultures had a 7-day dedication ceremony for their temples. The cosmos was created to be the Lord's temple (Isa. 66.1), and Gn. 1 is the account of the 7-day dedication ceremony where the Lord ordered it and came to take up residence ("rest") in it.

> Genesis is an ancient book of desert fairy tales, nothing more

Only if one's mind is closed. If you would like to open your mind to discuss these matters, I would be pleased to discuss them.

Listen, you thinking something makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't grant it any merit. Does Scientology have any merit, just because to some people it makes a 'WHOLE LOT' of sense? Did the people at Jonestown kill themselves for a good cause because to them it made a 'WHOLE LOT' of sense? No, they didn't. You thinking something doesn't make it true. The facts remain. Gensis' account of creation has no evidence, and the evidence for evolution via natural selection is overwhelming. You can't argue that the days represent different stages of evolution or whatever, because the order is very, very wrong in accordance to the fossil record. I'm not quick to draw assumption, I haven't assumed anything, I know that these are irrefutable facts. Genesis is an ancient book of desert fairy tales, nothing more. Until a molecule of a scrap of a pinch of a piece of slightly credible evidence is brought forth, it will be nothing more. And I find it about as fascinating as watching a dung beetle trip over. so, not very. I'm sorry if it seemed i got angry there, but I get this sort of response of 'you don't understand the text's text's true meaning' thing from Christians so much, and I'm tired of it. To me it's nothing more than the 'You can't say I'm wrong though' argument that a 7 year old could think of.

You started out interestingly: "Obviously the book of Genesis is a totally false account of the Earth's creation..." Um, that's not quite so obvious at all. I have read some fascinating exegesis lately where (quite credibly and reasonably) Genesis 1-2 are taken as being about function, not structure. The point of Genesis 1 is not about God creating the material world (though other texts teach that he did that, but don't tell us how), but about God assigning roles and function to creation, bringing order out of chaos (v. 2). Gn. 1.1 is a heading—a title. Then, the idea is that if God wanted to make a statement about bringing something out of nothing, he would have started with nothing. But if he wanted to make a statement about bringing order out of chaos, he would start with chaos. Voila! Gn. 1.2: chaos. Then in the course of chapter 1 we find God ordering the cosmos (a very deep concern in the ancient Near East) by creating time (day 1), climate (day 2), agriculture (day 3), etc. It's not about the manufacture of material matter, but about bringing order, function, and purpose to the universe and to life. It's a fascinating approach to Genesis 1-2, and to me makes a WHOLE LOT of sense.

You may ask, then, how did all this come about? That we are not told, and we may pursue the truth where it leads us. The Bible says that God created all that is, and that he is the one who brought purpose and functionality to it. Period. That's what the concern of Scripture is about, not about the science of how.

So possibly you're a little too quick on the draw to assume that Gn. 1 is a false account, and accusing Jesus of perpetuating the lie by not denouncing creationism.

> When did we develop a 'soul'?

That would be in Gn. 2.7, when humans were "ensouled". The creation from "dust" is also not speaking of material manufacture, but of man's mortality and being invested with a soul, and then given a role and function.

> If Genesis is an allegory

It's not. According to this perspective that I am telling you, Genesis could easily be historical, but it doesn't necessarily mean that Adam and Eve were the first hominids. The text doesn't say. But perhaps A&E had evolved to the point that God determined, "Now these two are far enough along to ensoul, be morally responsible, and to have a relationship with." At that point, the narrative treats them like archetypes of the human race (not allegories or metaphors), representing all of humanity that would follow them. So possible the text is quite literal, but not at all what you've been taught or are interpreting it as.

I find it a fascinating approach with a lot of merit.

I've been wondering this for a time now. Obviously the book of Genesis is a totally false account of the Earth's creation, but if this is so, then this brings up a few questions. If this part of the bible isn't true, how can you be sure any of it is? If the Bible is the word of God why would he give us a false account? Why didn't Jesus denounce creationism? At what stage in our evolution did God decide he would intervene? When did we develop a 'soul'? If Genesis is an allegory, what does it mean, and why would God claim it was literal? I could go on but I think I've covered most of the main questions I have. Any feedback would be much appreciate.