Replies

Okay, so, we are now coming to the real issue. You -are-, in fact, a literalist, yes? A day is 24 hours, and had to be so even before the creation of the Earth? Noah's flood actually had to rise above the level of every mountain on the entire planet, rather than just being more then enough to wash out all of the populations which by necessity all concentrated on low-level river areas? Noah actually did fit in two of every single animal into his ark (doing that with all the various insect species alone would've sunk the ark instantly, unless of course you buy evolution of those insects to account for all the different species since that point, but we can't do -that- either...)

Let's clear something up here. There aren't two camps at play in this debate, those who disagree with the Bishop and those who don't. There's three.

There's the literalist position, the one you apparently occupy, which states that the Bible is absolutely literal in every last single respect, such as the aforementioned.

There's the accuracy position, the one that says that the Bible is not absolutely literal but is accurate in terms of the historical events that took place. That is the Catholic Church's position, and probably the position expressed by those Catholic you have spoken to, who you are misrepresenting as claiming that the Bible is -inaccurate- and not merely not literal.

Then there is the Bishop's position, which -seems- to be that the Bible is actively historically inaccurate and relates events that never happened at all. This is not the Catholic Church's position.

You happily commingle the 2nd and 3rd as if they are the same thing, because you're in the 1st camp and can't distinguish between the two. If someone points out that Noah's Ark couldn't have carried two of every single animal species currently in existence on the planet, and even if it did, what could they possibly eat for 40 days and nights other than each other, well, then they're saying that the Bible LIES. Never mind that someone can believe that the story of the Flood can be true, that it was indeed several weeks they spent on the Ark, that Noah did manage to take -many- species on the ark (and evolutionary processes could account for speciation since then), etc.

But let's face it. If someone claimed that they were only on the Ark 39 days, 23 hours and 47 minutes, you would call them a heretic.

You've done an excellent job of making it look like anyone who isn't a literalist believes that the Bible isn't an accurate historical account. Too bad it's not reality.

Qwinn