George Harrison, the guitarist for the Beatles was a Bhakti Hindu. He believed in a personal god, and he said that if one chants the mantras with devotion, Lord Krishna would visibly appear and speak to him in an audible voice. Many pagans are similarly convinced of having met their deities too. For example, a cat fancier in Texas insists he began worshipping Bast only after the Egyptian goddess dramatically appeared physically manifest, having personally chosen him to become her disciple. The Chinese religion is a mixture of Confusionism, Taoism, Buddhism, polytheism and ancestor worship. Devotees of this blend of traditions are capable of remarkable feats of faith, and many of them claim direct communication with their gods and spirits as well. All of these different believers, and some Buddhists too, talk about their spiritual rebirth once they accept whichever deity into their lives. Every religion boasts their own miracles and prophecies proving thiers is the truest faith. So its no surprise that Christians say the same things about their versions of God too. No religion is significantly different from any other in this respect. But whatever else may be going on, when men claim revelation from God, it usually means is that they’ve decided to promote their own biased and unsubstantiated opinions as if they were divinely inspired. So its not like any “one true god” is really guiding all these people they way they all insist he/she/they, or it is.
If any god exists, and it happens that there’s only one of them, then surely every spiritually enlightened and visionary holy man from any nation or tribe should be able to sense it, if men can sense such things at all. And their scribes would write the scrolls seeking to make sense of it –however feeble an attempt that may be. Perhaps that’s why there are so many different religions; because no man can know the true state of God. There can only be one truth, and only one version of it. But rather than coming together, as everyone’s search for the one truth should, religions continuously shard further and further apart into more divided factions with mutually-exclusive beliefs, -and there are as many wrong interpretations as there people claiming theirs as the “absolute truth”. Which brings us to the third foundational falsehood of creationism; the assertion that any human's understanding of their various internally-conflicting and inter-contradictory beliefs should, -or even could- be considered infallible or inerrently accurate.
In reality, there is no such thing as “absolute truth”. Everything within the capacity of human understanding contains a degree of error, and everything men know to be true is only true to a degree. Everyone is inevitably wrong about something somewhere. We don’t know everything about everything. We don’t know everything about anything! And what we do know, we don’t know accurately on all points nor completely in every detail. Honest men admit this. Anyone claiming to know the absolute truth is not being honest, especially not when they claim to know anything about things which can only be believed on faith. Even if men were given genuine revelations by truly omniscient beings, they must still be filtered and interpreted by weaker minds influenced by our limitations, biases, and misimpressions, as well as linguistic and cultural barriers.
In the history of history itself, no account human journalists have ever given has been absolutely complete, inerrant, and perfectly accurate -especially when there is a desperate emotional bias such as there is at the source of each of the world’s religious books. All of them were written decades or centuries after the alleged events they claim to have witnessed, and they speak of many scenes no one could have witnessed at all. Some of them, -like the Bhagavad Gita and much of the Torah- were originally written as poetry. So the conversations can’t have been verbatim unless all the characters really spoke in rhyme. These tales include impossible absurdities which can’t even be corroborated by any other contributors internally, much less external records. No matter how many witnesses there supposedly were, or how many historians should have known about it, the only source for any of the fables in the Bible is the Bible itself.
Archaeology certainly doesn’t support any of these stories. Instead, we have many earlier versions of many of them coming from myriad myths of polytheism, some of which written by the very ancestors of the Biblical authors. They apparently conceived all the original, but as-yet unassociated elements which were eventually “blended together” into the fables we now know as Genesis. These stories can be interpreted wildly differently by anyone who reads them.
Some argue that the Bible doesn’t really say some of the things we can prove that it does, while others are convinced that it clearly does say things that it doesn’t really even hint at anywhere. For example, the idea that there was no death before “the fall”. The Bible doesn’t say that. In fact, it says there was death before the fall, because Adam and Eve had to ingest and digest living cells in order to survive, the very definition of what it means to be an animal. The only way around that was to eat of the fruit of the tree of eternal life, which directly contradicts the creationist’s interpretation, because it wouldn’t need to be there if they already had eternal life. It is an obvious metaphor representing a choice, perhaps between innocence and responsibility. That too is an interpretation. But it was obviously not an actual deciduous plant!
The council of Nicea gathered theologians from all over the Roman empire trying to interpret what their scriptures meant rather than what they said. One of the central points in dispute was whether Jesus was who he said he was, or whether he was secretly God instead. Those trying to reconcile contradictions between the Old and New Testaments may have borrowed concepts of trinitarian gods and avatars from the Hindus. In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna said he was the creator of the world and God-in-the-flesh, an avatar of Vishnu. But in the gospels, which are the only documents claiming to record the Christ’s actual words, Jesus never implied any of that at all. Jesus only did what Akenaton did; promote himself as the sole prophet of the sun-god. At one point, Jesus says he is "one" with God. But he clarifies that he is referring only to his purpose, and he says that any of us might become "one" with God just as he is, and that we may perform even greater miracles than he did. But throughout the Bible, regardless whatever else he may claim about himself, Jesus always only ever described himself as separate from, and subordinate to El/Allah/Abba/YHWH. And he said that the god of Abraham, and bringer of the flood was someone else somewhere else, who knows things Jesus doesn't know, can do things Jesus can't do, and who did things Jesus didn't do, but only witnessed, like creating the world. Jesus also spoke about God in 3rd person and to God in 2nd person, and in one scene God talks about Jesus in 3rd person too –when he introduced his son to the Jews. Then the Holy Ghost showed up and lead Jesus to somewhere Jesus did not already know. None of this could be if Jesus were an avatar or "god-in-the-flesh" because then Jesus and God and the holy ghost would all still share the same knowledge, power, identity and position in space and time. So it is pretty clear that Jesus did not believe himself to be the same god as the one he and the Jews both worshipped.
When the Nicene creed was being conceived, the committee took a vote on the identity and divinity of Jesus. Even that is subject to interpretation! Those who said Jesus was a prophet of God but not of the same essence as God –lost the vote, and were banished to prevent their ideas from influencing the Christian formation. For a time, both sides labeled the others heretics.
If the Bible is interpreted literally, then it is clear that its authors believed that the world was a flat disc, which was originally said to be covered by a giant crystal dome. It was a common belief at the time in all the neighboring regions. But it was still wrong. The Biblical authors obviously knew nothing about the real state of this world nor the worlds beyond this one either. But we know what lies outside our atmosphere. And that proves that there is no water above where the firmament isn't, and no windows to let it drain in -if there was either water or firmament there.
Some Persians at that time said that the god, Mithras had the stars sewn into the lining of his cloak, which he would drape over the crystaline firmament to bring on the night. But we know that night is not a veil to be spread over the missing firmament like a curtain or a tent. We also know that the stars are not made to stand in the span of this expanse because they are not "high" in the firmament; there is no firmament, and they are so far beyond our puny world that "height" is meaningless and inapplicable. They are much too far away to be blown out of place by any storm and they couldn't be taken "down" by anything at all. We've also proven that the illusive heavenly firmament has no foundations either, and neither does the Earth. There are no pillars holding the Earth above the deep, because there is no deep. Outer space is not full of water! We also now know what lies outside our gravitational field. And that proves that you can't have any passage of days and nights without a sun to measure them against an Earth which constantly moves. We also know that the sun cannot be made to set at noon, and that neither the sun nor the moon can be stopped in the sky. We also now know what is beyond our solar system. And that proves that the stars can't fall from the sky, and even if they did, we still couldn't stomp on them because they're each millions of miles around. Which makes it a bit silly to imagine a whole group of them having conscious minds, and ganging up in combat with a mere human being. We even know now what lies beyond our galaxy. And that proves that nothing or no one could ever "seal up the stars". We also know that the Earth with its fictitious firmament didn't predate the "lights in the heavens" by any amount of time, and that the stars weren't "set" specifically to light the Earth; because the Earth is not at the center, -or the beginning- of the universe in any respect. The way the Bible depicts the Earth in relation to the rest of the universe is wrong and has been known to be wrong for thousands of years.
Many creationists say that it is impossible to understand or believe the Bible unless it is read “in the spirit of the holy ghost”. In other words, you must already assume its truth before you read it, and you have to read it through filters of faith because it certainly isn’t compelling on its own without those blinders on. If it doesn’t make sense, then you’ve got to convince yourself that you must not understand it properly, and you’ve just got to try to make yourself believe it anyway somehow. That is precisely why creationist faith is deemed ‘dogmatic’. But that’s also proof by admission that even a literal reading must be “interpreted”. So its very design is such that the Bible can not be either inerrant or “absolute truth”.