.... which is the point.
Interpreting something that is (supposed to be) inerrant harbours an internal contradiction and the thing ardent religionists are therewith confronted with and cannot, dare not, will not face, is that explicit contains implicit which renders it incontrovertibly axiomatic that the implications of the dogmas religionists claim they adhere to undermine the explicit doctrine those dogmas depend upon.
-it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
after all, truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true - everything else ... mere conjecture-
New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!