"But why?" "BeCaUsE tHe BibLe...!!!"

They claim that a literal reading of the bible precludes evolution but their insistence that the bible presents a unified message requires them to take creative liberties with the bible anyway

“Creative liberties” is a really mild way of describing their bullshit. Each of the four accounts of Jesus’ supposed resurrection differ very substantially (the number of women, the exact time, etc.) I have seen Christians claiming these to be merely “stylistic differences”. Boy, imagine a judicial proceeding with four witnesses, each of them disagreeing on when did the crime happen, who had committed it, etc., then explaining it away saying these are just stylistic differences. And the aforesaid example is only one of the many, many contradictions in the “Holy Scriptures”.

https://youtu.be/AOEVjPjbD5U?si=E2Uhix1qchgX6o4L

The Bible doesn't say 'no evolution' it just says 'no random evolution' God guided it

“The Bible doesn’t say ‘no evolution’ “

Neither does it say explicitly that there is evolution. It says, God created everything in 7 days (or six, and on the seventh he rested, whatever). In the past, you HAD TO believe this quite literally, unless you wanted to mess with the Church. This can be seen e. g. from the Nuremberg Chronicle, which begins with all that biblical stuff. See also (if you understand Spanish) the Reportorio of Rodrigo Zamorano, especially the fifth book. It becomes totally clear from these writings that the seven-day creation was accepted as a historical truth. Are we getting into contradictions? Does your god change his mind regarding how his “word” should be interpreted? How can you expect us to believe all this nonsense, if even Christians themselves cannot agree on what to make out of it? Also, should we follow the Catholic or the Protestant version of the Bible? Or the Ethiopic Bible, which itself has two versions? And sorry, but I am certainly not going to watch that video. Not because of what you think, that perhaps I would not be able to respond to it, but simply because I do not want to get apoplexy while listening to some Christians trying to convert me. I have done that in the past, and they did not really succeed, as you can see. But I would be really happy to hear why do you think that my above argument (with the judicial case comparison) is wrong.

2 Peter 3:8–9 reads: 'But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. This hints at the fact that it would be longer than it seems to create the earth

"No your questions don't make any sense."

Then explain to me why exactly they don't make any sense, so that I can understand.

You are saying God should reveal the true meaning. It's in the Bible and the Bible says there will be no future prophets, and the person who revealed it would be considered a heretic and likely burned for something so minor

So what you are saying basically amounts to “God could have revealed the true meaning, but he didn't want to”. In other words, God essentially deceived the people, kept them in ignorance. A nice god you have. Even if prophecy wasn’t supposedly allowed, he could have chosen (given his flipping omnipotence) other ways to do so, but he didn’t.

Here's a non religious proverb 'sometimes the easiest way is not the best way' I know it's corny but it's the best we have

You can’t solve questions such as this with stupid proverbs. And of course you point out it’s a ‘non-religious proverb’, as if that alone could make me believe it. If your god really is so f*cking omnipotent, he could have chosen a way which is the easiest AND the best at the same time, couldn’t he? But again he didn’t.

If this supposed meaning of 2 Peter 3:8 is really so damn obvious, why didn’t medieval people realise it? Why did they regard the seven-day creation as a historical fact? Also, you seem to ignore my questions, but that is, frankly, not surprising at all.

Medival people were stupid and the church in the Medival times was undoubtedly corrupt

“Medival people were stupid.”

How do you know that? What exactly do you mean by “stupid”? Also, what does the corruption of the Church have to do with the fact that they did not realise the supposed true meaning of the said passage? It seems to me that you try to avoid answering my questions at all costs.

I am giving you answers. Stupid as in couldn't (most of them atleast) read, aslo the church was feeding thems lies. Church corruption, indulgences, and the crusades. Do i need to say more?

besides the bible wasn't even written in the vernacular anyway before the renaissance, so it didn't even matter if they knew how to read english they would have to learn how to read latin or greek (unless all books were all written in greek or latin at that time, idk)

Thanks

It does not matter at all that most of them couldn’t read. Why didn’t your god reveal to them the true meaning? He could have done that in spite of all the corruption, in spite of all the Church's lies, since he is (as you Christians always say) so damn omnipotent and omnibenevolent or whatever, isn’t he? Also, what have crusades and indulgences to do with this question?

I don't have time for this

I would say the same thing if confronted with overwhelming evidence to which no legitimate answer can be given.

No your questions don't make any sense

Wait typo just 2 Peter 3:8