FSTDT Forums
Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: Material Defender on February 11, 2013, 03:04:25 pm
-
I grew up fairly religious child. Catholic, that kind of thing. When I read about how the Earth was created in the bible early on, I took it as fact... but after reading the science texts and being taught about big bang theory and evolution, I decided that the bible was metaphorical and while still an interesting book, not a 100% factual certainly. There was no test of my faith, no major interruption in my faith. Even without consulting the actual Catholic position on this. My sexuality was far more influential in turning away from my religion than anything with evolution or other things since it mattered in my every day life and the expression of faith. Evolution versus creationism is just interpretations of the universe, but have no influence on how one expresses their faith. God doesn't punish ignorance, God punishes willful wrong doing I knew very well.
So why is it that these other faiths consider it so very key that you be a creationist? To the point their dumbing down America willfully? I want insight, not mocking.
-
Short answer? For most Christians, because it is in the Bible. So if it is in the Bible, creationism has to be true. If it isn't, then that means the Bible is wrong about something, and if it is wrong in their eyes on even one thing, then it could wrong on everything. Therefore, they have a vested interest in creationism being true.
-
Short answer? For most Christians, because it is in the Bible. So if it is in the Bible, creationism has to be true. If it isn't, then that means the Bible is wrong about something, and if it is wrong in their eyes on even one thing, then it could wrong on everything. Therefore, they have a vested interest in creationism being true.
Why can't they take the metaphorical escape route? There's plenty of things written in the past that were metaphorical as opposed to literal.
-
Basically the same reason. And yes, there are some verses and/or chapters of the Bible they say are metaphorical or allegorical, but they get to pick and choose which those are. And it is usually the ones that make some other verse or chapter contradictory. But for the creation story, it is the first thing told about in the Bible. It is the first chapter of the first book, Genesis. For many Christians, if not most of them, it is necessary that the creation story as told in Genesis be the true and accurate account of how their God set everything into motion. It simple has to be that way. There's no reason for it other than it has to be as it is written in Genesis.
If they start accepting that Genesis is, in fact, not true as written, then they feel their entire faith system comes crumbling down as it would be possible to remove God from the equation. And they just can't have that happen.
-
Basically the same reason. And yes, there are some verses and/or chapters of the Bible they say are metaphorical or allegorical, but they get to pick and choose which those are. And it is usually the ones that make some other verse or chapter contradictory. But for the creation story, it is the first thing told about in the Bible. It is the first chapter of the first book, Genesis. For many Christians, if not most of them, it is necessary that the creation story as told in Genesis be the true and accurate account of how their God set everything into motion. It simple has to be that way. There's no reason for it other than it has to be as it is written in Genesis.
If they start accepting that Genesis is, in fact, not true as written, then they feel their entire faith system comes crumbling down as it would be possible to remove God from the equation. And they just can't have that happen.
It seems like a 4 or 5 year old way of dealing with doubt. I figure there has to be a more complicated reason than that because it seems like you're just setting yourself up for failure that way.
-
I agree with Star Cluster, since the creation of the world in Genesis acts as a basic foundation for everything else that more literal bible interpreters may believe.
-
I just keep asking that same old question.
"Is God not intelligent enough to accomplish what needs to be done without breaking the rules he apparently set this universe up with?"
And the answer is no, partly because he needs to periodically "kick science's ass" to validate his fan base, because, you know, that pesky science just keeps getting in the way of their magical deity. And for the reason Star Cluster outlined; they're too invested in thinking that EVERYTHING in the bible needs to be true and if there's a single thing that's in error, the entire house falls down.
-
It seems like a 4 or 5 year old way of dealing with doubt. I figure there has to be a more complicated reason than that because it seems like you're just setting yourself up for failure that way.
Well, these are the people who think "child-like faith" is a virtue.
-
I also once read the explanation, that the christian creation story has to be literal truth, because otherwise the original sin commited by Adam and Eve wouldn't really have happened. That in turn would make Jesus's sacrificing himself at the cross to god to atone for that original sin rather meaningless, since the sin doesn't exist anymore. That would destroy the whole concept of Jesus being humanities savior and invalidate large portions of the teaching they beliefe in.
Not sure how widespread or theologically sound that reasoning is though, since most of the time the reasoning I read is: "The bible says it, therefore it is true.".
Muslim creationists seem to be the same as in that they assume the quran to be absolute and perfect truth and therefore everything in it including the creation story has to be perfect or the whole thing comes crashing down. Haven't really seen one, but I assume the same would go for a jew creationist, except with the bible instead of the quran.
-
The majority of those who hold to creationism seem to be spectacularly uneducated. Yes, they insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis, but we must also consider that anything "sciency" is gobbledygook to them. Science makes then feel inadequate and they are hostile to it.
-
I suppose the other question is why they can't accept it as metaphorical despite the fact there's two versions of the same story side by side. That seems like it'd blow such literalism out of the water. I always favored the 1st chapter story over the 2nd one because I felt like Man was on a pedestal instead of being the initiator of evil.
I also once read the explanation, that the christian creation story has to be literal truth, because otherwise the original sin commited by Adam and Eve wouldn't really have happened. That in turn would make Jesus's sacrificing himself at the cross to god to atone for that original sin rather meaningless, since the sin doesn't exist anymore. That would destroy the whole concept of Jesus being humanities savior and invalidate large portions of the teaching they belief in.
Hrm, well Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for everyone's sins to allow them into Heaven. Some interpret him smashing the gates of hell in that NOBODY can go to hell as well. Original Sin more or less I've heard told to me the idea of the fact that we brought free will onto ourselves and we cannot undo it whether we like it or not, thus we have to take it with its ups and downs. Some Christians accept it as well as a metaphorical 'sin' in abandoning hunting gathering societies for the 'forbidden fruit' of agriculture, since one involves a lot more down time and the other is a lot more labor intensive.
-
Yes, but many of your "good Christians" accept what's told by their pastors without doing research like that, and those pastors are too preoccupied with trying to reclaim what "science has taken from
them God." They're also much more concerned with their influence and prestige, thinking Jesus wanted an army of lawyers who base all their arguments on their book of laws. Ironically, just like the Pharisees were supposed to have been doing.
-
It's all about control. Everything else is a bunch of bullshit to make themselves look like victims, but deep down, it's about people controlling what others think. If they really wanted to push an alternate view, they'd accept all creation views and not immediately leap to, "God did it."
Hypocritical powerhungry assholes.
-
Religious conservatism has the same root cause as most other types of conservatism - it's a ward against perceived threats.
Liberal minded folks probably love the complexity and weirdness of a world divorced from creation myths. Complexity and weirdness gives many conservatives the vapors and causes others to reach for their 12 gauge.
Not to say that creation myths aren't weird, but weird in a bounded, predictable sort of way that leaves a grumpy patriarch in charge.
-
I suppose the other question is why they can't accept it as metaphorical despite the fact there's two versions of the same story side by side. That seems like it'd blow such literalism out of the water. I always favored the 1st chapter story over the 2nd one because I felt like Man was on a pedestal instead of being the initiator of evil.
Most Christians don't believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are two separate versions of the creation story, but rather that Gen 2 is an extension of Gen 1. They view Gen 1 as a quick summary or generalization of the creation week and then Gen 2 as a more detailed look at the creation of mankind. They don't see a conflict between the two. Although, as Rime said, most of them haven't really taken a close enough look at it to see the differences.
I also once read the explanation, that the christian creation story has to be literal truth, because otherwise the original sin commited by Adam and Eve wouldn't really have happened. That in turn would make Jesus's sacrificing himself at the cross to god to atone for that original sin rather meaningless, since the sin doesn't exist anymore. That would destroy the whole concept of Jesus being humanities savior and invalidate large portions of the teaching they belief in.
Hrm, well Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for everyone's sins to allow them into Heaven. Some interpret him smashing the gates of hell in that NOBODY can go to hell as well. Original Sin more or less I've heard told to me the idea of the fact that we brought free will onto ourselves and we cannot undo it whether we like it or not, thus we have to take it with its ups and downs. Some Christians accept it as well as a metaphorical 'sin' in abandoning hunting gathering societies for the 'forbidden fruit' of agriculture, since one involves a lot more down time and the other is a lot more labor intensive.
If we're going to get into original sin, which admittedly is another part of why Christians must have the creation to be true, freewill, and Jesus' "sacrifice," then this is going to be a loooong thread.
-
I suppose the other question is why they can't accept it as metaphorical despite the fact there's two versions of the same story side by side. That seems like it'd blow such literalism out of the water. I always favored the 1st chapter story over the 2nd one because I felt like Man was on a pedestal instead of being the initiator of evil.
Most Christians don't believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are two separate versions of the creation story, but rather that Gen 2 is an extension of Gen 1. They view Gen 1 as a quick summary or generalization of the creation week and then Gen 2 as a more detailed look at the creation of mankind. They don't see a conflict between the two. Although, as Rime said, most of them haven't really taken a close enough look at it to see the differences.
They're incompatible though. In one God made animals and stuff first, while in the other he made man and then animals. I can't be the only person in existence to read their bible.
I also once read the explanation, that the christian creation story has to be literal truth, because otherwise the original sin commited by Adam and Eve wouldn't really have happened. That in turn would make Jesus's sacrificing himself at the cross to god to atone for that original sin rather meaningless, since the sin doesn't exist anymore. That would destroy the whole concept of Jesus being humanities savior and invalidate large portions of the teaching they belief in.
Hrm, well Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for everyone's sins to allow them into Heaven. Some interpret him smashing the gates of hell in that NOBODY can go to hell as well. Original Sin more or less I've heard told to me the idea of the fact that we brought free will onto ourselves and we cannot undo it whether we like it or not, thus we have to take it with its ups and downs. Some Christians accept it as well as a metaphorical 'sin' in abandoning hunting gathering societies for the 'forbidden fruit' of agriculture, since one involves a lot more down time and the other is a lot more labor intensive.
If we're going to get into original sin, which admittedly is another part of why Christians must have the creation to be true, freewill, and Jesus' "sacrifice," then this is going to be a loooong thread.
As long as its civil, I don't mind.
-
I suppose the other question is why they can't accept it as metaphorical despite the fact there's two versions of the same story side by side. That seems like it'd blow such literalism out of the water. I always favored the 1st chapter story over the 2nd one because I felt like Man was on a pedestal instead of being the initiator of evil.
Most Christians don't believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are two separate versions of the creation story, but rather that Gen 2 is an extension of Gen 1. They view Gen 1 as a quick summary or generalization of the creation week and then Gen 2 as a more detailed look at the creation of mankind. They don't see a conflict between the two. Although, as Rime said, most of them haven't really taken a close enough look at it to see the differences.
They're incompatible though. In one God made animals and stuff first, while in the other he made man and then animals. I can't be the only person in existence to read their bible.
I'm not arguing that point. I agree. But just because you and I and damn near everyone else on this board see that, I challenge you to go find a majority of Christians that will agree with us. I'm not arguing against you, I'm just answering your question as to why creationism is so vital to so many people. But just as they see no conflict between 1st and 2nd Gen, they see no conflict or contradictions anywhere in the Bible. Some of it comes from not knowing what the Bible says. But a lot of it is willful ignorance and/or denying the obvious. As I stated originally, they believe it because, to them, it has to be true.
If we're going to get into original sin, which admittedly is another part of why Christians must have the creation to be true, freewill, and Jesus' "sacrifice," then this is going to be a loooong thread.
As long as its civil, I don't mind.
Okay, then. I don't have time to get into all of this right now. But when I do get a little time, I'll post my views on this.
And BTW, the views I am expressing come from my personal experiences growing up in a Protestant church and in not only being a Christian until my early 30's, but also being a certified lay speaker in my denomination for several years. And I cannot speak to what Catholics believe as I am familiar with them from what I have read or heard. But I can tell you from my experience and association with Protestants for the most part what they believe and why.
-
I grew up Catholic, so I know what they believe and what not. Most of the bible is metaphorical or superseded by the New Testament. The first five chapters of Genesis as a whole are regarded as ENTIRELY metaphorical, as in they don't have a grain of truth to them at all, and more there to teach lessons about pride, arrogance, sin, and other things than tell a real history of the world. I think honestly there's a lot of reasons why I say "I agree with the Catholic Church in theology, but I disagree with how its run." Since they could fix easily a lot of their problems like females not being priests (There's no traditional or biblical precedent on that, and is usually addressed by each Pope with some shakey bull recently.), Homosexuality (Shellfish anyone?), contraception versus abortion (A conclave found there was nothing wrong with contraception theologically, but the Pope wouldn't hear it.) if the Pope didn't act like he was brought up in some backwater conservofundie protestant denomination. The position of Lay Catholics and the Papal heads are so widely different as to be hilariously sad.
-
I grew up Catholic, so I know what they believe and what not. Most of the bible is metaphorical or superseded by the New Testament. The first five chapters of Genesis as a whole are regarded as ENTIRELY metaphorical, as in they don't have a grain of truth to them at all, and more there to teach lessons about pride, arrogance, sin, and other things than tell a real history of the world.
Errr, the Spanish Inquisition would've had your guts for garters for even hinting about parts of that. The church only acknowledged evolution in the 1960s or so, and they're still trying to misunderstand and misrepresent it whenever they get the chance. Additionally, those first 5 books have the only veiled reference to omnipotence outside of wishful thinking in the Psalms, and yes, as you said, it was hyperbole. Are you saying Letivican/Mosaic Law never happened? What did Jesus mean in Matthew 5:17? Are you calling Judaism and Islam a load of utter bollocks? Are you saying the genocides in Exodus and Numbers never happened? That the followers of the Storm God El in the Ugaritic pantheon didn't slaughter followers of his brother Ba'al, and their religion didn't transmute into following "Yahweh"? Or are you just saying that they made a complete pigs ass of explaining that in the Pentateuch? When Jesus was talking about the words of God lasting forever, wasn't he quoting or paraphrasing Deuteronomy? Aren't the 10 commandments in Exodus? Weren't people literally stoned to death for breaking them? Where were the teachings of the Pharisees that they were trying to trick Jesus into breaking? Etc...
-
Julian, calm the hell down.
I was talking about A: current church position. B: Talking in summary and C: Not even sure what you're ranting on about.
-
The simple fact of the matter is that they can't admit that anything may be wrong or metaphorical unless it fits their world view. Changing anybody's view of the universe, religious or otherwise, is not a simple task. People often go for large portions of their life thinking that they understand what they need to understand, and a number of religions (most prominently the Abrahamic ones that compose about 54% of the entire planet) are very vested in the idea that their holy book is the word of God Himself.
That said, humans are extremely good when it comes to cognitive dissonance and self-delusion (notice how I don't say "the religious are..."; the same flaws exist in atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and people of every stripe, with religion merely being the most apparent source due to its prominence and especially massive logical issues). Modern values and knowledge have changed massively since the Bible and Koran were first written, and people need to figure out how to deal with that without admitting that everything that they've based their world view and lifestyle on is fallible. Religion holds a much weaker grip on society than it did in the past, and people can freely interpret the Bible however they want. This is how you get the cognitive dissonance of a person who eats shellfish and wears clothing of different materials while claiming that the Bible is true and infallible and hating homosexuals and anyone who's not Catholic, or those who love gays (or even ARE gay) and admit that parts of the Bible are metaphorical or no longer applicable to modern society or even outright false, but cling to the portions that they personally want to believe in.
Actually, Creationism isn't quite as prominent as it used to be. Science and secular life have gained a much greater foothold in modern society. Really, only people who are downright backwards continue to teach plain Creationism or hatred of science. Most modern folk of the Western world are content to stick with Intelligent Design, as it lets them more easily mesh with scientific advancement and an intelligent and logical viewpoint without having to give up their gods.
In the end, religion is comforting. People want to believe that there's an omnipotent, omniscient father figure who watches over everyone and sometimes reaches down to help. They especially want to believe that there's something after death, that life doesn't just stop. Believing in religion, even if it means believing in something that makes no sense or being self-contradictory and resorting to denial and shouting sermons when your logic is turned back on you or has its flaws pointed out, is natural for humanity. It takes more effort and bravery to admit that God and Heaven may not exist than to believe in eternal happiness.
-
Modern values and knowledge have changed massively since the Bible and Koran were first written, and people need to figure out how to deal with that without admitting that everything that they've based their world view and lifestyle on is fallible. Religion holds a much weaker grip on society than it did in the past, and people can freely interpret the Bible however they want. This is how you get the cognitive dissonance of a person who eats shellfish and wears clothing of different materials while claiming that the Bible is true and infallible and hating homosexuals and anyone who's not Catholic, or those who love gays (or even ARE gay) and admit that parts of the Bible are metaphorical or no longer applicable to modern society or even outright false, but cling to the portions that they personally want to believe in.
This is important when defining "fundamentalism". In practice a fundamentalist does not necessarily believe that ALL of the historical doctrines of their belief/faith/ideology etc are true, but rather fiercely defends their favored doctrines as being absolutely true.
This also accounts for different ultra-religious factions of the same faith whaling on each other. They both believe the bits they picked of the initial belief structure are absolutely true and the opposing party is absolutely wrong!
-
Julian, calm the hell down.
I was talking about A: current church position. B: Talking in summary and C: Not even sure what you're ranting on about.
OK, no. The church position is NOT that the entire Pentateuch is metaphorical. You need to go back to catechism class. Original sin for starters! Plus all of this... you did one thing, AND managed to get it wrong...
http://www.beginningcatholic.com/tenets-of-catholicism.html (http://www.beginningcatholic.com/tenets-of-catholicism.html)
creator of heaven and earth
- God created everything in existence, material & immaterial. (317, 320, 338)
- "The world was made for the glory of God." He freely chose to create to show forth & communicate his "glory" — his unlimited love and goodness. (293)
- Heaven exists; it is the immaterial dwelling place of God. (326, 2802, 1023-5)
- God upholds & sustains creation, is actively involved in its unfolding and development in time, and is the loving master of the world and of its history. (301-5, 314)
- We can perceive God's work of creation through the apparent order & design in the natural world. (286, 299)
- This belief in God as the first cause of all creation is compatible with various scientific theories and investigations of the secondary causes of development in the natural world. (283-4, 306-8)
- God deliberately created man, male and female, in his image and likeness and placed him at the summit of creation. Man alone was created for his own sake, and alone is called to share in God's own life. We are not a product of blind chance. (295, 355-6)
- God created man as male & female: equal in value & dignity, different in nature, and complementary in purpose. (369-372)
- While the creation accounts in Genesis may use symbolic language, it teaches profound truths about creation, man, the fall, evil, and the promise of salvation. (289, 389-90)
- The devil, a fallen angel, is real. He is the ultimate source of all evil. (391-5, 413-15)
- Adam, as the first man, freely chose disobedience to God, resulting in the loss of man's original holiness and justice, and brought about death. We call this state of deprivation original sin. (416-19)
- The victory of salvation won by Christ is greater than our loss due to sin. (420)
- The question of evil is a profound mystery. Every aspect of the Christian message is in part an answer to the question of evil. (309)
Needless to say, everything in that list is spectacularly incorrect on every conceivable level.
As for C.... I'm quite aware you weren't aware of any of the stuff I said, because if you were you wouldn't have said what you'd said earlier - it's called benefit of the doubt that you're not an apologist asshat. Google if you get stuck, it's not like I used words like "thingy"....
[Edit to fix formatting]
-
Julian, you seem to be confused. Material Defender claimed the first 5 chapters of Genesis were seen as metaphor, not the first 5 books of the Bible. Also, claiming the account of the fall is metaphor does not mean the fall didn't happen, only that it didn't happen precisely as described.
As to the actual topic, I think many Christians see that if God didn't create the universe, then it is not necessary for him to exist. If you mean why do they hold to the Genesis account as literal truth, I think a lot of them just take their pastor's word as authority and don't even question it (or easily accept faulty explanations from their pastor if they do question it).
-
Yep, I did misread that... I was skimming a bit, and then there was the stuff about Levitican law, so went into the first 5 books, not chapters... Which is also a little bit rich considering that the creation gumph is over by Chapter 3, and from memory chapters 4 and 5 are simply the lineology from Adam to Noah, and the Cain and Abel stuff... So sacrifices didn't exist? And yes, while 41 generations from Adam to Jesus is amusing, it's not even the least incredulous part to drop (part of).
It's also a little ironic considering what happens in chapters 6 and 7 is not looming large on their "metaphorical" list simply because they're not being pressed for a position... Amazing what we change opinions to once we know better (what is impossible). Jesus believed in a global flood you know, if the scriptures are to be believed. Then again, he also believed epilepsy was caused by demonic possession, despite Hippocrates and others knowing better centuries beforehand - and commenting upon the whole absurdity of the "divine" explanation.
Not going to waste my breath on the "fall"......... Only going to say that it's even more impossible once you remove the "Goddidit" explanation for everything else. You've chucked away the only out.
-
Amongst other things, it validates their belief in the absolute and everlasting righteousness of male supremacy and female subjugation to male authority which is further sanctioned (they believe) by (their fav Apostle) Paul's hearkening back to creation in order to vindicate why women should simply stfu and let the men rule.
I can't be the only person in existence to read their bible.
No, you're not, but rather than going through the monumental effort of learning to read, these creationists prefer to be spoonfed all the cherry-picked passages by their pastor or other male authority figure who can readily quote scripture. Take them to task on their pet passages by presenting to them preceding and subsequent verses, and they either go mute or toss another pet passage into the ring as a refutation (lather, rinse, repeat...)
-
The thing I find astonishing about the Catholic church is their set lesson plan for sermons. The Liturgy of the Hours, etc. You don't even get to cherry pick your sermons, the church has already kindly done that for you.
-
Amongst other things, it validates their belief in the absolute and everlasting righteousness of male supremacy and female subjugation to male authority which is further sanctioned (they believe) by (their fav Apostle) Paul's hearkening back to creation in order to vindicate why women should simply stfu and let the men rule.
I can't be the only person in existence to read their bible.
No, you're not, but rather than going through the monumental effort of learning to read, these creationists prefer to be spoonfed all the cherry-picked passages by their pastor or other male authority figure who can readily quote scripture. Take them to task on their pet passages by presenting to them preceding and subsequent verses, and they either go mute or toss another pet passage into the ring as a refutation (lather, rinse, repeat...)
Now, let's be honest, they won't just either go mute or toss out another passage, we know what they're more likely to do. They will simply bunker down and insist that it is YOU who is doing the cherry picking or adding unnecessary passages. YOU are the one who simply doesn't understand because you A) don't have the Holy Spirit™ in you, B) aren't reading the "correct" translation, or C) just don't want to admit you're wrong.
-
*sigh* There is no correct translation. ALL translations are, by definition, erroneous. If you REALLY want to understand the Bible, you need to read it in the original Hebrew. I mean, seriously. English, Latin, and Greek aren't even in the same LANGUAGE FAMILY as Hebrew.
-
*sigh* There is no correct translation. ALL translations are, by definition, erroneous. If you REALLY want to understand the Bible, you need to read it in the original Hebrew. I mean, seriously. English, Latin, and Greek aren't even in the same LANGUAGE FAMILY as Hebrew.
Aren't some bits of the old testament in Aramaic? Also the new testament was written in Greek.
-
*sigh* There is no correct translation. ALL translations are, by definition, erroneous. If you REALLY want to understand the Bible, you need to read it in the original Hebrew. I mean, seriously. English, Latin, and Greek aren't even in the same LANGUAGE FAMILY as Hebrew.
It's much worse than that... There's the willful mistranslations because they wanted to up the ante a bit. There's the downright edits from copy to copy because they didn't like what it said/implied so the stories 'evolved' as the old copies died. There's the fact that half the stories were sourced from different cultures with different languages still (Sanskrit's a good example), and on top of that, all of this had been passed down from mouth to mouth for centuries (generations for the NT) before someone actually wrote them down. The only reason it still happens to be based on planet Earth is there's a strong cultural bias of self interest to ensure it remained so. It's 5,000 years of ball sweat and essence of bollocks, distilled into insanity.
-
Even if you found texts in Hebrew, there's nothing guaranteeing that they're "correct" in any sense of the term. Historians aren't quite sure of the exact date of the creation of the Bible, and there's inevitably a ridiculous number of different interpretations by the first people to create the Old Testament and New Testament, each of them making their own interpretations of religious history and law.
-
Wasn't the original language Aramaic, anyways? or am I thinking about the New Testament?
-
You're thinking of the New Testament. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew.
-
*sigh* There is no correct translation. ALL translations are, by definition, erroneous. If you REALLY want to understand the Bible, you need to read it in the original Hebrew. I mean, seriously. English, Latin, and Greek aren't even in the same LANGUAGE FAMILY as Hebrew.
Should have clarified I meant the "True Christian" creationists with that sentence.
And silly Meshakhad, we all now that the KJV is the only true holy version based down from God himself.