The Bible describes God's creation as "good", not "perfect".
By your having told us that
perfect is a subset of a subset of
good, you have told us that
perfect is
good. Because I am well aware of your weepy sensitivity, and of your penchant for attempts at fault-finding as a means of directing attention away from your self-incoherence, I, preemptively, would have you note that I'm NOT saying, here, that you have told us that ALL
good is
perfect; but what you
have, indeed, told us is that ALL
perfect is
good. That's exactly what you've told us in telling us that
perfect is a subset of a subset of
good. Also, what you've told us, therein, is that some good is not perfect. So, you've told us that ALL good is exhaustively divisible into two categories:
good that is perfect, and
good that is imperfect.
Now, when you tell us that the Bible describes God's creation as "good", which do you mean?
- Do you mean that the Bible describes God's creation as good that is imperfect?
OR
- Do you mean that the Bible describes God's creation as good that is perfect?
You are either mistaken, or lying. I did not say "perfect is not good". I merely pointed out that the Bible says "good" about the creation. It does not say "perfect".
So, according to you, when the Bible says "good" about the creation, the Bible is referring to
imperfect good?
And, what (if anything) was your point in pointing out that the Bible says "good" about the creation, as a reaction to 6days' having said that the Bible says that the creation was perfect, UNLESS you were saying that the Bible says that the creation was
imperfectly good, rather than
perfectly good?
I said that "good" is not "perfect". Not the opposite.
By saying, as you said, that
perfect is a subset of a subset of
good, you did, indeed, say that SOME good is
imperfect, as well as that SOME good is
perfect.
Nor did I say anything about the creation not being perfect- only that the text does not say so
Here, you are saying that the text, when it says that the creation was
good, does not mean
good that is perfect--which, if true, would necessitate that the text means
good that is imperfect. So, yeah: contrary to your falsehood, here, you
did say something about the creation not being perfect.