INTERPRETATION versus FACT -- Which is more palatable for the "evolutionist"?

Did you know that the evolutionist would accept the Bible if the Bible was written in the same way evolutionists write? That's right. They would accept it as fact right on the spot. But, it is not written with the deceptive dishonest language the evolutionist uses. For, this deceptive language is nothing more than a religious language designed to appear as fact, but is totally deceptive. And, the evolutionist falls for it hook, line and sinker believing that to do so makes them intelligent and sophisticated. You know, above the ignorant riff-raff. By the way, when I write evolutionist I mean all who believe this fairytale of human creation. Created by minds who make it up as they go, just like the writer of the Wizard of OZ, Grimm's Fairy Tales, Mother Goose, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, etc. Pure fiction written to be accepted as fact.

Now, these so-called scientists accept each other's contradictions because each of these "scientists" openly profess that what they say and write is their OWN inferrence, opinion or interpretation. Thus, leaving the opposing scientist an opening to present his or her opinion, inferrence, or interpretation without fear of being contradicted. They each leave the other an out, so that when their lies are exposed, they can say, "well, I told you up front that this was MY interpretation." This is one reason, by the way, why all these so-called educated elite use the built-in expression, when you challenge them, that goes like this: "Why, that's just YOUR interpretation." They are so used to their peers using this excuse, that they think they can override you by using the same excuse on you. But, it is only a way to lie to themselves to make themselves feel good about the lies and deception they constantly espouse to the "ignorant" public. But, you don't need to be ignorant of their religious language deceptions anymore.

So, let's quote a version of the Bible the evolutionistic scientists, educators, atheists, lawyers, government officials would accept at first reading. But, first, I want to quote the version they will not accept. Because, it is not an interpretation but real.

REAL ACCOUNT:

"In beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth. And, the earth became chaotic and confused, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Elohim vibrated upon the face of the waters. And, Elohim said, Let light become and it lighted. And, Elohim saw the light, GOOD, and Elohim divided the light from the darkness. And, Elohim called light day, and darkness night. And the evening and the morning -- day one."

Of course, the story goes on and tells how life came about, from plants to animals and man. All the truth and fact when properly understood. However, the problem is, the "writer" of this account does not say, "now for all my peers let me make it clear that this is MY opinion, my inference and my interpretation of the facts as I see them based on the most recent reliable science." No, that is a no-no. We cannot have straight statement of fact as fact. It must be statement of opinion as fact. Now, that's ok.

So, let's now look at the Bible account that these "scientists" would accept right now, on the spot, IF it had been written with the language of deception used by the world's "scholars".

FAIRY TALE ACCOUNT EVOLUTIONISTS WOULD ACCEPT:

"Let us suppose that creation occurred because a spirit Being can be assumed to exist. Of course, this is only my interpretation of the facts as I see them. Now, assuming this spiritual Creator exists, then we can suppose that He or She or It was involved in creating the heavens and even the earth. It appears that with such a possibility, then obviously we can assume that light had to come into existence so He could see what He was doing. Especially since it is only reasonable to assume that IF light had to be brought into existence, there had to be darkness. And, assuming this, IF it is true, then of course, the light would have to be called day, and the darkness would have to be called night. Just as is the practice today. This strongly suggests that the day and night were combined into a first day. We don't know with certainty yet whether this could be a 24 hour day, or a 1,000 years, or an unknown period of time, but it seems to be reasonable to assume it was a recognizable time period. Of course, the prevailing scientific view by most current scientists is that it was an unknown extremely long time.

What appears to be involved here, IF we infer from the prevailing scientific opinion, is that the creation was in some kind of chaos and emptiness and required some kind of vibratory aspect to begin fixing the problem. So, we can not only imagine that a primordial soup developed which had to thicken by extra heat or cold from somewhere in order for the first elements of life chemicals to develop and form chains of amino acids. We can even infer that this could have been made possible by volcanic activity drying out the soup to concentrate it further. It was about this time, it seems, then, that life came into existence."

Would you accept that nonsense? No? Well, scientists do. And, they think this is intelligent writing and factual presentation. Yet, it is exactly what Paul said they would do with their darkened minds. Here's what he said:

"Because that, when they knew Elohim, they glorified Him not as Elohim, neither were thankful, but became vain in their IMAGINATIONS, and their FOOLISH heart was darkened. PROFESSING themselves to be wise, they became FOOLS. And changed the glory of the incorruptible Elohim into an IMAGE made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. [as in evolution?]... And, even as they did not like to retain Elohim in THEIR KNOWLEDGE, Elohim gave them over to a REPROBATE MIND..." [A mind that believes fairy tales are facts, as in the language of deception used by evolutionists, etc.']

So, you think these so-called scientists are not that way? Well, let's now look at their actual writings, and you tell me which is a fairy tale and which is real fact.

Deceptive Example 1:

"Laboratory experiments like these are significant because they demonstrate that the molecular building blocks of life COULD HAVE BEEN synthesized in ANY ONE of MANY DIFFERENT WAYS during the early history of planet Earth.

These basic ingredients, HOWEVER, are NOT LIFE itself. They are still much simpler than a single cell. Amino acids and nucleotide bases are in fact substantially less complex than even the proteins and nucleic acids found throughout CONTEMPORARY life. How, then, were the ingredients of this primordial soup initially assembled into proteins and nucleic acids? APPARENTLY, the soupy organic slime was FURTHER CONCENTRATED so as to PERMIT not only stronger but also drier interaction.

... Heat, for example, COULD HAVE evaporated some water, especially along the shoreline of a primordial ocean OR a lagoon inlet. It SEEMS REASONABLE to SUPPOSE that the repeated in-and-out sloshing of tides in shallow waters COULD HAVE led to a daily cycle of solar dehydration of molecules in a temporarily dried lagoon during low tide, followed by further interaction of those molecules in the open ocean during high tide."COSMIC DAWN, The Origins of Matter and Life, Eric Chaisson, 1981, p. 162, 163

Wow, doesn't that give you confidence that this is real and not a fairy tale?

Deceptive Example 2:

"The ape society from which humans evolved lived some 5 million years ago SOMEWHERE in equatorial Africa. NO FOSSIL REMAINS OF THESE ANCESTRAL APES HAVE YET BEEN IDENTIFIED WITH CERTAINTY. YET much can be INFERRED about them through the study of the two other living species descended from the chimpanzees and their cousins the bonobos.

There are several reasons TO SUPPOSE that the ancestral apes were very chimplike -- an important ASSUMPTION, IF TRUE, because it means that today's chimpanzees serve as a REASONABLY CLOSE surrogate for them. One is that gorillas, which split off from the ape lineage before the human-chimp split, are themselves rather chimplike, SUGGESTING THAT so too was the lineage that led to the human-chimp ancestor. Another is that the earliest fossils on the human side of the chimp-human split are quite hard to distinguish from chimpanzees. [You'll see why in the next example.]" BEFORE THE DAWN, Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors, Nicholas Wade, 2006, p. 13-14

Deceptive Example 3:

"The drought that occurred in Africa 5 million years ago MAY HAVE BEEN the agent that FORCED EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE on the apes ancestral to both chimps and humans. DESPITE the SERIOUS LACK of FOSSIL EVIDENCE, much can be INFERRED about the joint human-chimp ancestor. Its population numbered somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 breeding individuals, according to GENETIC CALCULATIONS. ASSUMING that its way of life resembled that of chimpanzees, it WOULD HAVE LIVED in communities about a hundred or so strong, structured around a group of related males. By INFERENCE from the chimpanzee society, the males WOULD HAVE defended their territory aggressively against the males of neighboring communities, with frequent fatalities... The male apes, AGAIN ON THE ASSUMPTION the species resembled chimpanzees, ..." Ibid, p. 16

I don't know about you, but the above is a fairy tale using religious language for deception, not only of the writer, but of the reader. A fairy tale writing is a fairy tale. And, the above is nothing more than the kind of deception the Goddess Religion foists on these writers of evolutionary nonsense. It is so clear that it is amazing that even the scientists and scholars who promote it can't see what they are doing. The reason they can't see is simple. They are living PROOF of the Scriptures. They operate with an obviously foolish mind that cannot understand or accept real fact. Nor can they understand factual writing. It has to read like a fairy tale for them to understand it. And, of course, to them the fairy tale written that way is and has to be fact.

There you have it. The method that would have to be used to give the evolutionist a Bible they would accept instantly. One written just like their scientific diatribe fairy tales in the guise of fact.

Finally, I would like to give you a list of deceptive phrases used by the self-deceived scholars. After you read them, there is no excuse for you not being able to pick apart the "scientific community's fairy tales." After you read this, you will no longer accept the obvious lies told by "scientists" of all kinds. Besides, don't you know, they will give you another fairy tale cure in "five to ten years." But, they never come. Ok, the phrases:

Well, that's it. All the great "factual" expressions used to con people into believing the Goddess Religion deception about evolution, and other non-scientific nonsense. The above are just the expressions I found on the first 22 pages of one book quoted above, and the first 5 pages of the other. And, both are books 200 and 300 pages long. You tell me how much fact they really have versus the deceptions given under the guise of "scientific". Or, "science so-called".

Shall we translate the entire Bible into "The Evolutionist's Bible"? They would believe it if we turned it into a fairy tale like they write and believe. Any translators familiar with their language of deception wanting to volunteer?