Why do people deny evolution?

I don't know enough about historical changes to the bible. I assume what was written was what was canonized and very little changes were made, so I am not among those that think things were substantially, if at all changed.

But that may be because I do not know the facts surrounding this issue.

Assuming then that what was written was true to what was written, what I do think happened was that those who wrote after others writings embellished that (to them) original account with stuff that ended up contradicting those earlier accounts. These people were not rocket scientists. They were all interested parties (which in my opinion is the most damning of all). All were seeking to make their newfound religion bigger, badder, better than previous religions.

None of them, for obvious reasons, had proper literary skills when it came to putting together a coherent, logical argument for their subject. And it wasn't just the early Christians, the other philosopher too, Plato, Aristotle - all the Greek philosophers suffered from their presuppositions about the information their senses gave them (such as how obvious it was that the earth was the center of the universe and that empirical perfection existed in shapes).

Bottom line, as a book that purports to have at its core the highest purpose and importance to us, does not fulfill what we now know today (since the advent of science) as a proper explication of a subject.

For recalcitrant passages, Christians appeal to exegesis, but then insist on using faith as their grounding? What about those who use eisegesis? What about those who do not have access to the original Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew so they can get a proper translation? Isn't the Bible supposed to be for all people for all times? Yet without so called exegesis, how much would someone get wrong? And they were getting certain things wrong, for centuries, because exegesis wasn't available to everyone. Those folks had to rely on a priest interpreting for them because they were illiterate.

Yet somehow with the advent of the aforementioned scientific (if you'll allow my stretching of the term) way of understanding things, we think that exegesis is necessary. Necessary to prove Jesus divinity, to extricate Christianity from all the contradictions.

Why not just make it plain, not up to interpretive explanation via exegesis or eisegesis? In fact, I think the latter suits Christianity more. The Bible clearly states it is by faith and that a gift of the Christian God. Why do you need all the other stuff? Side with Paul that you can look around and see God's handiwork and that should be enough..

Yet, somehow that's not enough, another contradiction. Somehow those heathens on islands who've never heard of Christianity, God has never given those people faith to understand. The word has to be carried by others to these people. Then God can 'give faith' to those people, but not before.

But wait, what about the interpretations, all the misinterpretations that the historical Christians brought with them regarding Jesus divinity, slavery, purgatory etc.? Oh wait, they weren't the REAL Christians were they? Too bad those heathens didn't have exegesis to help explain to them all these issues that exegesis claims to resolve. You see, that word meant this, not that. The people of that time would have interpreted it this way, not that way.

Oh, but wait, what does all that matter? What matters is accepting Jesus! Then why bother with the exegesis? And round and round we go..

You really don't need to go that far to refute the bible. There are just too many errors, omissions, and contradictions for it to resemble any god.

People quickly realised that the trick is to concentrate only on Jesus, not on Organised Religion or anything else..
"Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith" (Hebrews 12:2)
Org Rel is popular because the masses like to let it do their thinking for them, but running with the herd won't do them a bit of good if they're all going up the spout. Jesus spelt it out-
"Call nobody teacher except me" (Matt 23:8-10)

To me, the most damning parts of the bible are those parts of it that do not square with the maturity I possess as a human adult. The homophobia, the misogyny, the wanton, God-sanctioned killing. Hell, even Jesus killed pigs and cursed trees.

The theological explanations for these things are terrible. But what's really insidious is folks who clearly get their theology from the bible, but then try to enervate these things I've mentioned above. Or deem them irrelevant. They pick and choose what out of the bible is 'real'.

They use it for their theology and metaphysics, yet only for what's coherent to them. Which, ironically is often what's coherent, for the most part, for me - simply because they take out all the contradictions! And then you are left with something that can't really be attacked because they deny (maybe as just plain false or even falsified or at the least misinformed) the contrary parts. They go to the 'core' of the belief, sometimes saying the other stuff is really irrelevant..I think this is an intellectual cowards way out..

I prefer William Lane Craig's view, that all the killing in the bible was justified simply because God ordered it (the Calvinists view). As deplorable as that view is, at least he isn't trying to hide it behind some metaphysical mumbo jumbo..(this is a guy who also thinks that animals don't have feelings..an apparent attempt to explain away the torture that animals are made to go through just to live the violent lives they live which, apparently, God infused into them..

The key:

It's necessary for everybody who believes in the bible to pick and choose their poison. Otherwise, they would go insane trying to reconcile all the contradictions in it. It also has to do with your list of homophobic, mysogenistic teachings that are out of date by a couple of thousands of years.

It teaches nothing about equality for all humans. God missed the true message for humanity.

1- Jesus never said a word about GLBT's one way or the other, not a single word. Sure, God zapped Sodom/Gomorrah in the Old T, but they were the worst kind of gays, loud, noisy,filthy and depraved, hammering on peoples doors demanding their men be sent out so they could have them, so God removed them from the gene pool..

2- Christianity has no beef with women; Paul said-
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28 )

3- As for all humans being equal, Christians are more equal than the rest..
"What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?..Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord, I will be a Father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters" (2 Cor 6:14-18)

You strain out the gnat of sentences while ignoring the plank of the whole book..

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts..

Your contention that they were the worst kind of gays being the reason why they were murdered is illogical. If they were murdered for other reasons and their sexuality had nothing to do with it (as you seem to be claiming), then why bring up their sexuality in the first place? This is the worst kind of bigotry.

Its like the sickening people who call someone a 'black' bastard as opposed to just being a bastard. The prefix betrays their racism..

Yes, maybe Jesus said nothing about Gays, but the OT has lots to say..and the story of Noah? I suppose all those 6 month old babies that were killed were also loud, noisy, filthy, depraved as well? Or is it your contention there were no babies murdered in the flood?

That's one of the contradictions of god's love that was not logical in my mind. I was in my early teens when I saw too many contradictions that didn't make any sense to me. I'm an atheist today, but all my siblings are christians married to christians.

As the yellow sheep of the family, I don't agree with their politics either.

The Flood story is steeped in analogy and metaphor, for example the Ark was too small to take so many animals aboard so don't take it too literally, only thickheaded fundies do that..

God's not some wishy-washy lefty social worker!
Nobody minds decent friendly gays, but the Sodom/Gomorrah lot were totally depraved and a blot on humanity, so he toasted them..

That's what makes christianity so interesting. Different people have different interpretations of the same stories. Nothing needs to be taken at face value. They're all analogy and metaphor. Take your pick. They just happen to be "the word of god."

OK, tell me again, which is the story that is steeped in analogy and metaphor..?

In modern terms we could regard the Ark as a "DNA Repository craft" which would explain how samples from thousands of different species were able to fit in the Ark.
And the rising floodwaters might have been an analogy for environmental pressure.
Or perhaps the Ark was a spacecraft from a dying planet bringing DNA samples to colonise the Earth.
In fact we could regard the Earth itself as the Ark, sailing the ocean of space with its precious cargo.
It's all just fun speculation of course..

Scientist Isaac Asimov once suggested the 'Flood' was a super-tsunami caused by an asteroid impact in the Indian Ocean which swept up the Tigris/Euphrates valleys carrying the Ark with it up to Turkey.
As regards Sodom/Gomorrah, the area of the cities is littered with odd globular stones that may have been formed by great heat.
The moral?- Fact or analogy, take your pick..

You have a very good imagination, worthy of a first class novelist. Have you ever considered writing as a profession?

I think you miss the point. I'm sure there are many things in the bible that are possibly based on physical phenomenon. None of that stuff is in debate. There is fire, there are meteors, earthquakes etc. The debate is about whether it was caused supernaturally.

Hence, in my view, there isn't any archeological evidence that could 'back up the bible's claim of a God. You see, there isn't archeological evidence of supernatural things. There are only physical things that you and others place supernatural causation on..I think it perfectly legitimate that folks who wrote the bible describe what the real things that are part of real physical events. Anything outside of this purview, you can make up whatever the hell you want. And people do. If you want to ascribe supernatural causation behind physical events, you are only limited to your imagination. Non sequitur.

The point about taking your metaphorical picks stands. Your physical evidence doesn't mean anything relative to things supernatural.

Nice phrase. And a devastating point.

I'm sure it will be summarily dismissed by the apologists with a yet another in a long list of blind rationalizations.

For those who are not aware, HS is Romeo Fabulini reborn.

Until today, I had mistaken you for someone who had actually read the bible.

Interesting. I didn't know that.