[doc30]

Just cherrypicking in what you want to believe like you're shopping at walmart's and 'tolerating' any other absurd, blasphemic or murderous position can't be the right way.

A literal interpretation of Genesis is inconsistent the observation of God's Creation. Since man is Fallen and imperfect, then it is not the physical world around us that is in question but the interpretation of Scripture. To claim a literal reading of Genesis is correct, then you are saying God is a liar, which borders on the blasphemous.

[dartuser]

A literal interpretation of Genesis is inconsistent the observation of God's Creation

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, "Who is this that darkens counsel. By words without knowledge? Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, Who set its measurements? Since you know."

[wereatwar]

A literal interpretation of Genesis is inconsistent the observation of God's Creation.

There's no conflict between a literal interpretation of The Genesis and God's Creation. Except, of course, you take some produced 'scientific' assumptions like evolutionism for true. I've heard your argument before, though not from a Christian.

Since man is Fallen and imperfect, then it is not the physical world around us that is in question but the interpretation of Scripture.

So you're implying that our Holy Bible is just a book to be interpeted at will? Do you notice that you could use the exact same argument saying that the quran or Marx' capital had just been 'misinterpreted' by fallible men, and are indeed meant as books of 'peace' and of 'social justice'?
That's the kind of stuff I'd expect from a staunch liberal...