(Original post by o-e-s-j)
oh, this one's a classic! you've had your bull**** torn apart by rational and logical reason and unequivocal proof; so all of sudden it becomes a "metaphor", a fable, "figurative".
No, it's not actually. Any notable theologian would tell you that
is a figurative book. Just look at the style of written - the even more ambiguous imagery and poetic style despite uncovering the semetic (Hebrew) language. It's as figurative as pandora's box. It's was merely a way to demonstrate how the earth was created through a way that the people at the time would understand. Their was an oral culture, and stories such as Creation were used as a way to describe how God created the earth, not a scientific analysis of it. So refrain from you
smilies and actually do some research.
Genesis has been known to be figurative for a long time after scholars have researched the books of the Bible. There is a clear difference between Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch [books of law - first five books of the Old Testament]. Compare Genesis to, say, Mark's Gospel. Clear difference in culture, period and tone. Events were recorded in a factual account in the latter book.
You wouldn't take Revelations, with all it's splendid imagery and poetic themes, literally, so don't do it with Genesis. You wouldn't take Songs of Songs literally either, however you would take the Gospels literally. It is not a case of us moving the goalposts, but a case of interpreting each book for their individual value.
Why the hell did god only make 2 people in the first place, if he did, of course.
Why not, lol?