The Bible

[cipherdecoy]

I've heard of some beliefs that the book of Genesis is false, and that the Bible should not be taken literally.

First of all, wouldn't a single falsehood in the Bible call into question its veracity as a whole? Secondly, why are interpretations so diverse when the Bible, being supposedly a book of God, should be clear in its message? If some things in the Bible take a theologian or someone as highly educated to discern, doesn't that remove its accessibility to the ordinary man?

Some may argue that the Bible was written by people and not God himself, but in any case, God was the one who instructed them to do so, and shouldn't He have made sure that it was going to be accessible to all people, or at least, timeless and free of ambiguity?

I want a Christian point of view on this topic, and please don't turn this into some kind of an evolution versus creationism debate.

Thanks.

[Redzeppelin]

I've heard of some beliefs that the book of Genesis is false, and that the Bible should not be taken literally.

Science and the Bible disagree - since science is comprehensible to the human mind, it seems more reasonable. Maybe, maybe not.


First of all, wouldn't a single falsehood in the Bible call into question its veracity as a whole? Secondly, why are interpretations so diverse when the Bible, being supposedly a book of God, should be clear in its message? If some things in the Bible take a theologian or someone as highly educated to discern, doesn't that remove its accessibility to the ordinary man?

First - you are correct that the Bible must be a unified whole; if we dismiss Creation, or the Crucifixion, or the miracles, then there is no reason to believe that the rest of it is valid.

Interpretations exist because the problem that inherently lies within language - the problem isn't with God. Think about it: language is an attempt to put an idea, a concept, into sounds that have a certain meaning. Just as there are moments in life we cannot find words for, there are things that can't possibly be expressed adequately in language; one of those things would be the character of God, how He thinks, and the complex nature of His existence. Just as writing can never truly render the magnificent experience of a beautiful sunset, it cannot do justice to God.

As well, words are subject to interpretation - that's just the nature of language, and the issue gets worse when we bring in the issue of translation, because some terms don't translate (and the art of translation involves a certain degree of subjectivity, no matter how objective you may try to be). Theologians can point out finer points and such, but the Bible speaks clearly if one is being assisted by the Holy Spirit. In other words, it is God that gives clarity to the purposeful reader of the Bible. Atheists who read it in order to discredit it do not even begin to understand it - because spiritual things are understood spiritually. Patience and prayer can enable anyone to understand the Bible.


Some may argue that the Bible was written by people and not God himself, but in any case, God was the one who instructed them to do so, and shouldn't He have made sure that it was going to be accessible to all people, or at least, timeless and free of ambiguity?

I want a Christian point of view on this topic, and please don't turn this into some kind of an evolution versus creationism debate.

Thanks.

It is impossible to communicate the mysteries of God in a way that resembles a textbook. No special knowledge is necessary to understand the Bible - some of the greatest witnesses have been very simple, modestly-educated people - but they were people guided by the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for asking -

[cipherdecoy]

What about those who aren't guided by the Holy Spirit in the same way as they were? And is the Bible to be taken literally? If not, how then are the metaphors going to be interpreted? Surely they are going to be subjected to various interpretations as well. I agree with what you said about language, but aren't metaphors too secondary for a book of such a purpose? For example, perhaps since language already cannot capture every aspect of what the Bible truly means to convey, why would one want to further obfuscate it with metaphors?

On the other hand, if the Bible is to be taken literally, then it would mean that a dragon will appear upon Armageddon, which sounds pretty implausible to me. The phrase "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is also a contradiction to the teaching's of Christ, who fosters forgiveness and mercy instead of revenge. Although I don't see how that can be perceived in any way other than in the literal sense.

Also, isn't the Bible sexist?

I Timothy 2:11-14
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

How then, can God be fair by being such? That is certainly too straightforward to be metaphorical to me, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

Then there is also the issue of violence and cruelty.

31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

If that is to be taken literally, it would mean that God wanted those who broke the Sabbath to be executed. If that was truly the case, why is it no longer the case now in the 21st century? Shouldn't the teachings of the Bible be timeless? Why shouldn't God mete out the same punishments when we're people all the same? Which brings me to another point - while language may be an excuse for diverse interpretations, the content should not. Although they were written by people who lived in different eras, many principles should be timeless. For example, murder is as wrong now as it was before, as opposed to doing something else like killing an animal as a sacrificial offering. Since the latter will later prove to be irrelevant, shouldn't it therefore be omitted to prevent confusion? (I don't think that practice has elicited much confusion, but I hope the example managed to put my point across)

I think I've deviated a little from my initial questions, but do answer them and thanks for your reply. Pardon any ignorance on my part - I'm no serious reader of religion. :goof:

[AARONDISNEY]

I've heard of some beliefs that the book of Genesis is false, and that the Bible should not be taken literally.
That is the point of view of some. Not my point of view though. There are parts of the Bible that are figurative, but it is obvious when that is the case. Such as Daniel's stone figure representing the future world ruling kingdoms, or in Revelation where Christ is pictured as a lamb having been slain with seven horns.


First of all, wouldn't a single falsehood in the Bible call into question its veracity as a whole?
Of course it would. But if you are reading from the original or a good translation (I believe the KJV to be a good translation) you'll not find any falsehoods. I believe that many newer translations have incorrectly found what they believe are copyist errors in the KJV and have taken that false assumption and tried to correct it in the newer version which does nothing less than actually create an error. But the pure word of God is error free.

(Note. I'm honestly not starting a KJV only rant here. I understand that many Christians disagree with me and I have no problem with others using other versions. For myself however, I stick with KJV.)


Secondly, why are interpretations so diverse when the Bible, being supposedly a book of God, should be clear in its message?
Exactly. You have to make a particular percentage of a book different in order to get your own copyright. The newer versions are quite different than the authorized version.

I am not saying they are complete rubbish. Some of them are very helpful. But I consider them helpful in the same way a commentary is helpful. They may clear up a difficult passage, but I don't put a lot of stock into them word for word.



If some things in the Bible take a theologian or someone as highly educated to discern, doesn't that remove its accessibility to the ordinary man?
The Bible itself says this about itself.


1 Cor 2:9-14
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(KJV)

In other words. When you trust Christ as your Savior, he clears up some things for you. The Bible is not always easy for a Christian or a non-CHristian to understand, but God's Spirit reveals its truths to you as you place yourself in His hands.


Some may argue that the Bible was written by people and not God himself,
Indeed God used men to write the Bible, and each word was inspired by the Spirit. It was tainted with the personality of each individual writing it as well.

I've used the illustration that it was like a stained glass window allowing light to come in. You see the light pass through and the different colors cast in, but it's the same source for each, the sunlight.

When God inspired these men to write this, he used their lives and personalities and yet governed the words that were written.


shouldn't He have made sure that it was going to be accessible to all people, or at least, timeless and free of ambiguity?
True that there have been times when certain men have tried to withhold the Bible from the 'common' folk. But it keeps coming back around. One Catholic Pope (I don't remember which one) tried to destroy every Bible in the world. Didn't work. I think I have about 12 of them floating around my house.

God's word is indestructible.

It is timeless as well. The precepts found in the Bible are just as relevant to me today as they were to all the people down through the years. The truths it teaches can be applied to any generation.
The primary truth that is taught is that we are sinners in need of a Savior and that one (Jesus) has been provided for us.

As far as ambiguity. There are parts that are difficult and there are parts that are more easily understood. My opinion is that he gives us that believe in Him enough of a taste of the great stuff that is easy to understand to inspire us to action in digging deep into the things we have trouble understanding. Which I find to be fun.


I want a Christian point of view on this topic, and please don't turn this into some kind of an evolution versus creationism debate.
You got one. Thanks for the question and the opportunity to answer it.

[Chester]

There are parts of the Bible that are figurative, but it is obvious when that is the case.
Not to be argumentative, because I like your style, sir. And I love dearly what Sir Walter Scott referred to simply as The Book. But what exactly is it that makes the figurative parts "obviously" figurative and - by implication presumably - the literal parts obviously literal? Why is the flood, for one example, obviously to be taken literally? Or the virgin birth? Or the Tower of Babel?

[jaywalker]

Is jesus cursing the Fig Tre for not giving fruit out of season Figurative ?

[AARONDISNEY]

Not to be argumentative, because I like your style, sir. And I love dearly what Sir Walter Scott referred to simply as The Book. But what exactly is it that makes the figurative parts "obviously" figurative and - by implication presumably - the literal parts obviously literal? Why is the flood, for one example, obviously to be taken literally? Or the virgin birth? Or the Tower of Babel?

Hi, Chester. Thanks for liking my style. I didn't think I had any style to speak of whatsoever. Let me return the compliment and say that the few posts I've read from you have been the utmost in respectfulness.

The figurative parts of the Bible are usually obviously figurative is probably what I should have said. It is generally when a prophet is speaking of a vision that he had that the subject if figurative, but not always.

As I was speaking of in Revelation, there is a lot of figurative language. I don't believe that we will see Jesus in heaven as a slain lamb. He is spoken of that way to demonstrate a point. That he was our sacrifice (being like a lamb) and that he was punished in our place (slain) and it is said that he had 7 horns. Seven being the number of completion in the Bible (e.g. on the 7th day God rested). And horns representing power...he was the lamb slain and yet in complete power.

The flood is to be taken literally. It was a literal story and though many scientists have tried to cover the flood up and say that the layers were formed over millions or billions of years. It seems likely to me that a worldwide flood where the fountains under the earth broke up (just like the Bible said) and the rains came down for 40 days and nights (from a canopy likely to be in the firmament spoken of in Genesis 1) caused a lot of movement and reshaping of the land.

If it was meant to be figurative - it is strange that it would be in the middle of the story of the history of the early days of earth. In other words, where would the mythology end and the real history begin. Doesn't seem to indicate such a thing.

Yet the flood does represent God's judgement and the Ark represents Noah's obedience and trust in God (since he followed God's command to build it) and God's preserving power to those that trust in Him.

The virgin birth is also actual. There is no reason to take it figuratively, other than that it is miraculous, but if God truly is all powerful, why would that be such an amazing thing to consider.

[AARONDISNEY]

Is jesus cursing the Fig Tre for not giving fruit out of season Figurative ?

I believe the answer is yes and no. No in that it really happened, and yes in that it was meant to represent something.

Israel was about to be snuffed out, they had not produced the fruit that God intended them to and so they (the nation not the people) came to an abrupt end for nearly 2000 years in 70 A.D.

[Chester]

Thanks for liking my style. I didn't think I had any style to speak of whatsoever
Sure you do. It’s one of sincerity and patience. Two things I appreciate.

I ask the question because as I’m sure you’re aware, flood motifs and virgin birth motifs (or at least miraculous-type birth motifs) and even resurrection motifs are not exclusive to the Bible. As well, similar creation stories abound. It was common in the earliest days of story-telling, from The Epic of Gilgamesh on forward, to relate “historical” stories with a lot of symbolism, to “mythologize” history. It was common practice. It might have been the only practice, in fact.

And so, when trying to determine whether the Bible is to be taken literally, or more as metaphor, and without a lot of strong evidence one way or another that these things really happened, one needs to take into account, it seems to me, the methodology of story-telling at the time. And then one needs to decide which is more reasonable to believe. Some of the stories you would define as literal work beautifully as metaphor. It doesn’t seem strange to me at all, for example, that the flood story is where it is. Taken as metaphor, it might simply represent the cycle of life, birth and death and rebirth. It’s quite beautiful.

Perhaps nowhere in the Bible is there a more beautiful story than the resurrection story, taken as metaphor. This might be the ultimate way to describe the idea of spiritual birth. The death of the body, the death of the “ego” self, and rebirth as the “true” self – connecting, finally, with the God within (what you would call the Holy Spirit). Now, did the resurrection really happen? Well I’m not prepared to say it did not. There are arguments for it (I have McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict on my shelf, for example) but there is no unequivocally clear answer. My point is, the story works regardless.

Now I know this is the kind of talk that is bound to chap the hide of a literalist. I know this. But something gets lost, it seems to me, when I see people (such as the people on this very forum) who are essentially asked to take the Bible literally, or to not take it at all. And then what you end up with (as if I have to tell you) is a bunch of people spending their time poking holes in it. Looking for contradictions, and thinking themselves oh so clever when they find one, as if they’re going to blow the lid off of 2000 years of tradition.

Maybe – just maybe – there’s another way these kids can be looking at the Bible, is all I would suggest.

[Jeb0092]

If you believed what the Bible said, you wouldn't believe what people say about the Bible.

God never said that the Bible is infallible, men said this. God never said he gave us the Bible as his word, men said this. The Bible cannot say anything about the Bible, because none of the Authors knew that what they wrote would be organized into a unified whole. The Bible is a box. God's truth has been trying to get out for 2000 years. Why keep it boxed in any longer.

[AARONDISNEY]

Hi, Chester.
Yes, I am familiar with similar stories to that of the Bible stories. I understand that many of the date earlier than the Bible dates. Yet that does not make the Bible stories the fakes or the copy-cats.

Think about it. If there really was a creation (which I believe there definitely was) and a flood (also I take this literally) there would be many many many stories of this flood and the creation passed from generation to generation and culture to culture and guess what?!? THERE IS!!

There is a story of a worldwide flood in cultures all over the world. Some of them are very very similar to the Bible's rendering, some are a bit different. But I believe the Bible to be the inspired God breathed information concerning all this.

Why would there be similar stories all over the world if it were only to be taken in an allegorical way?


JEB SAID

God never said that the Bible is infallible, men said this. God never said he gave us the Bible as his word, men said this. The Bible cannot say anything about the Bible, because none of the Authors knew that what they wrote would be organized into a unified whole. The Bible is a box. God's truth has been trying to get out for 2000 years. Why keep it boxed in any longer.

As to this quote - all I have to say is that you can only come to the conclusion you've drawn if you don't believe what the Scriptures themselves say. Of course the Bible claims itself as the Words of God.

In nearly every book of scripture another book of scripture in the Bible we have compiled is referred to as the Words of God, and when the words of God are mentioned it is to tell us their holiness and (of course) their infallibility. How can a perfect, holy God mess up and say something that is not right? If He's God and He wrote it there can be no contradictions and if you actually take the time to see the whole picture you'll never ever ever find a contradiction in the Bible.

Here's a few scriptures on what the Bible says of itself.......


2 Tim 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(KJV)

John 10:34-35
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came,
(KJV)

Rom 3:1-2
1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
(KJV)

Heb 4:12
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
(KJV)

2 Pet 1:19-21
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
(KJV)

[AARONDISNEY]

Perhaps nowhere in the Bible is there a more beautiful story than the resurrection story, taken as metaphor. This might be the ultimate way to describe the idea of spiritual birth. The death of the body, the death of the “ego” self, and rebirth as the “true” self – connecting, finally, with the God within (what you would call the Holy Spirit). Now, did the resurrection really happen? Well I’m not prepared to say it did not. There are arguments for it (I have McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict on my shelf, for example) but there is no unequivocally clear answer. My point is, the story works regardless.



You aren't 'chapping my hide' for sure, Chester. We're just having a friendly conversation. Yet you have to understand that the resurrection story cannot be just an allegory. It is the truth. If it isn't - I don't want to be a Christian. If the resurrection isn't true. I'm believing a man that's been dead and decayed for 2000 years to be God almighty.

Paul said this....

1 Cor 15:16-19
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
(KJV)

Yes, Jesus taught some wonderful essential truths, but without his resurrection, I have no assurance that this isn't all there is and in the end I become worm food.

[cipherdecoy]

The phrase "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" seems to be a contradiction to the teaching's of Christ, who fosters forgiveness and mercy instead of revenge.

Could you expound on that?

You may wish to respond to my second post, thanks.

[jgweed]

I have read carefully the passages quoted in post Nr.11; in none of them, as I interpret them, is there a clear statement about whether or not the Bible should be interpreted literally, whether all passages in it should be interpreted the same way, or precisely what is meant by "moved by the Holy Ghost."

In fact, one could understand the first quotation (Timothy) as almost implying that the Bible is true " for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" ---that is for matters of faith and dogma and not necessarily for matters of history or science. As I understand, many sincere Christian sects are very comfortable with this kind of interpretation, and look to the Bible primarily as a guide to faith. Many sects, not without reason it seems to me, moreover put a far greater emphasis in the New as opposed to the Old Testament, considering the latter as only important when viewed as a precursor to the Glad Tidings. Certainly there is much in the OT that seems to conflict with Christ's teachings; consider here the adage "an eye for an eye" with His admonition to "turn the other cheek" and love one's neighbor as oneself. Paul tells us that "faith, hope, and charity" are the foundation of Christ's teaching, not the rack of torture and revenge.
John

[blazeofglory]

I've heard of some beliefs that the book of Genesis is false, and that the Bible should not be taken literally.

First of all, wouldn't a single falsehood in the Bible call into question its veracity as a whole? Secondly, why are interpretations so diverse when the Bible, being supposedly a book of God, should be clear in its message? If some things in the Bible take a theologian or someone as highly educated to discern, doesn't that remove its accessibility to the ordinary man?

Some may argue that the Bible was written by people and not God himself, but in any case, God was the one who instructed them to do so, and shouldn't He have made sure that it was going to be accessible to all people, or at least, timeless and free of ambiguity?

I want a Christian point of view on this topic, and please don't turn this into some kind of an evolution versus creationism debate.

Thanks.

The Bible is really a good book, something we inherit with pride. However when it generates ideas that stir clashes once it gets to the hand of a mis-interpreter I feel sad.

[cipherdecoy]

The Bible is really a good book, something we inherit with pride. However when it generates ideas that stir clashes once it gets to the hand of a mis-interpreter I feel sad.

Hmm, would you care to expound on that? A little bit of your own interpretation might help. :cool:

[Chester]

Why would there be similar stories all over the world if it were only to be taken in an allegorical way?
Hi Aaron. Well now this is a terribly interesting question for me. Jung postulated a collective unconscious, a kind of shared, underlying psyche, if you will, filled with symbolism and “archetypes” as he put it. It begs a lot of questions that the same motifs turned up in many different places, sometimes at the same times. Perhaps they were (are) all different ways to explain that which is otherwise unexplainable. Creation, for example, is a tough thing to get one’s mind around. It doesn’t surprise me that this is something best left to allegory. And, given Jung’s view, it further doesn’t surprise me that the many allegories would be similar and, in my view, deserving of at least somewhat equal weight.


...you have to understand that the resurrection story cannot be just an allegory. It is the truth. If it isn't - I don't want to be a Christian. If the resurrection isn't true. I'm believing a man that's been dead and decayed for 2000 years to be God almighty.
Yes, he was God almighty. Or at least as close to the divine as perhaps any man has ever come. And a metaphorical reading might suggest that in some sense, so can we all be so close. That would be the allegory. And that’s why, even if the story is not grounded in actual events, you'd still want to be a Christian. The Incarnation exists in some sense as a possibility for us all. This is the thing to achieve. This is what one should strive for. This is what the story points to. Luke 17:21 “Neither shall they say ‘lo here!’ or ‘lo there!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”


Yes, Jesus taught some wonderful essential truths, but without his resurrection, I have no assurance that this isn't all there is and in the end I become worm food.
“All” there is? I know it wasn’t given the seal of approval by the early church leaders, and therefore presumably does not represent the true “Word of God”, but I like it anyway: “The Kingdom of God is spread upon the earth and men do not see it.” – The Gospel of Thomas.

[AARONDISNEY]

jgweed said

I have read carefully the passages quoted in post Nr.11; in none of them, as I interpret them, is there a clear statement about whether or not the Bible should be interpreted literally, whether all passages in it should be interpreted the same way, or precisely what is meant by "moved by the Holy Ghost."

Oh, I completely agree that there is no reason that all the Bible should be taken literally. There is definitely some figurative parts, some historically actual parts (which comprises most of all the narratives in it) and some that blend the two, when actual events are meant to teach lessons.

My point was that the Bible does indeed claim to be the words of the Living God and thus cannot have contradictions contained in it. If it is the Spirit that moved men to write it, then he governed the infallibility of it.


cipherdecoy said

The phrase "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" seems to be a contradiction to the teaching's of Christ, who fosters forgiveness and mercy instead of revenge.

Could you expound on that?
Jesus was speaking to his followers. This is actually all of what Jesus said concerning the subject..........


Matt 5:38-42
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
(KJV)

Jesus' point is that in his followers' lives, mercy was of utmost importance. That it is better to absorb an injury rather than have it settled in court. That's the main point. When the law of the Old Testament stated "an eye for an eye", it was giving instruction to magistrates and judges in how to handle complaints. Jesus never abrogated this as a good law to abide by for the courts, but he's urging his followers to allow injury to be absorbed that they may demonstrate the mercy that God was about to reveal to them in Jesus Christ.

Remember, you can't call this a contradiction simply because there is one place where God says that the way it's always been will be drastically changed. There is an old and a new testament. These are different ways that God is interacting with man.


Jer 31:31-33
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
(KJV)

[AARONDISNEY]

is the Bible to be taken literally?
Sometimes yes sometimes no. You can easily tell by the way the story is told. As with the flood - the Bible is simply telling the story of a man's life and God's interaction with him. And God's judgment on a wicked world. How is this to be allegorical.

Peter didn't think it was allegorical.

2 Pet 3:5-6
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:





If not, how then are the metaphors going to be interpreted? Surely they are going to be subjected to various interpretations as well. I agree with what you said about language, but aren't metaphors too secondary for a book of such a purpose? For example, perhaps since language already cannot capture every aspect of what the Bible truly means to convey, why would one want to further obfuscate it with metaphors?
The stories are there to teach lessons, but God also accurately recorded the things that actually happened.


1 Cor 10:11
11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
(KJV)

Paul is here speaking of Old Testament stories and says these things "happened" to them, indicating it is not only figurative, for ensamples (or illustrations) for us.

So you see, the Bible itself tells us its stories are real and illustrative.




Also, isn't the Bible sexist?

I Timothy 2:11-14
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

In my opinion you are mixing up two ideas. Namely that of authority and that of value.

The one thing that this says is that the man is in the authority. God set up the family structure and the church structure, because He is the originator of both.

If the top dog where you work sets one person over you, do you then conclude that he or she has determined that person to be of superior worth as a human to you?

Christianity is very tender to women. They are called in the New Testament "the weaker vessel" which may enrage feminists. But see what it actually says...
1 Pet 3:7
7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Give them honor, protect them love them.. here's a few more examples

1 Tim 5:1-2
1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.

1 Cor 7:3-4
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

Eph 5:25
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Eph 5:33
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Col 3:19
19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.


I could cherry pick Bible verses that make it seem to be anti-male if I wanted to but I try to read it in context. We live in a far different culture and different age, so there will be things that I have a bit of trouble understanding as well. But I don't consider the Bible to be sexist at all. It just requires that a man be manly and protect and love and reverence his wife.


Then there is also the issue of violence and cruelty.


31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

If that is to be taken literally, it would mean that God wanted those who broke the Sabbath to be executed. If that was truly the case, why is it no longer the case now in the 21st century? Shouldn't the teachings of the Bible be timeless? Why shouldn't God mete out the same punishments when we're people all the same?

I'm only gonna give you a short answer. I gave it in even briefer form earlier. The law in the Old Testament (where you are getting these things from) can be nicely divided into 3 parts. Moral laws, Civil laws, and ceremonial laws.

The ceremonial laws were there to point to Christ. They were called "shadows of the substance that is Christ" in Colossians. In the Sabbath we see completion and rest from works. We do not find salvation in works but in our rest in Christ. If you continue in your works to merit your salvation you will ultimately be die the eternal death. This was the picture - it is no longer to be enforced because CHrist said as much.

Jesus was always accused by the leadership of the time of breaking the Sabbath, but He said He is "Lord, even of the Sabbath". The teaching of scripture is eternal in its purpose. The purpose of the Sabbath law, The dietary laws, the Sacrificial laws (all done away with according to the book of Hebrews) were set forth to foreshadow the coming Messiah, Jesus.

And besides it was written that there would be a change in the testament of God's dealing with men. It would not make the Old Testament of no use, but it would illuminate it.
Jer 31:31-33
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.




Which brings me to another point - while language may be an excuse for diverse interpretations, the content should not. Although they were written by people who lived in different eras, many principles should be timeless. For example, murder is as wrong now as it was before, as opposed to doing something else like killing an animal as a sacrificial offering. Since the latter will later prove to be irrelevant, shouldn't it therefore be omitted to prevent confusion? (I don't think that practice has elicited much confusion, but I hope the example managed to put my point across)

I think I've deviated a little from my initial questions, but do answer them and thanks for your reply. Pardon any ignorance on my part - I'm no serious reader of religion. :goof:[/QUOTE]

[Pendragon]

I've heard of some beliefs that the book of Genesis is false, and that the Bible should not be taken literally.


Definately not false, perhaps incomplete. For example, not all of the descendants of Adam are named, when there would have to be many to populate the earth, and sons and daughters. Many of the animals that we know to have existed are not mentioned. There is room for more time to have passed which is not recorded. For example, how long were Adam and Eve in the garden before the fall? We don't know, as it isn't recorded. They were there for a time, for it says God walked with them in the cool of the eve. The geneologies start with after the fall, with the birth of Seth, so how much time had passed and who else was born, as Cain had needed a wife?

Genesis puts down most of the important things, but doesn't record everything. Whole generations pass without much comment until Noah. By then the Earth has a population that has become wicked before God. How did this happen without many others being born that have passed without comment? The Book of Genesis is a record of the children of God as a main theme. Many other people have lived that are never recorded. So it is incomplete. But the Bible isn't exactly a history book, now is it? So what we need to know is there for our lessons on how to be and how not to be. History is usually biased anyway!

God Bless

Pen

[alexsears]

The Bible is really a good book, something we inherit with pride. However when it generates ideas that stir clashes once it gets to the hand of a mis-interpreter I feel sad.The bible is true and you better belve it bub.

[blazeofglory]

I've heard of some beliefs that the book of Genesis is false, and that the Bible should not be taken literally.

First of all, wouldn't a single falsehood in the Bible call into question its veracity as a whole? Secondly, why are interpretations so diverse when the Bible, being supposedly a book of God, should be clear in its message? If some things in the Bible take a theologian or someone as highly educated to discern, doesn't that remove its accessibility to the ordinary man?

Some may argue that the Bible was written by people and not God himself, but in any case, God was the one who instructed them to do so, and shouldn't He have made sure that it was going to be accessible to all people, or at least, timeless and free of ambiguity?

I want a Christian point of view on this topic, and please don't turn this into some kind of an evolution versus creationism debate.

Thanks.

If you do not take it literally there will be more interpretations. The bible is definitely written by man.

God does not do the writing stuff at all.

[patrickbeverley]

I don't think the Book of Genesis is true but I do think it's very well-written.

[puppyshoes]

If you do not take it literally there will be more interpretations. The bible is definitely written by man.

God does not do the writing stuff at all.

Genesis starts with, In the beginning God Created the heven and the earth. and the earth was without form and void. No where does the Bible say the earth was created on day one. In another part of the Bible it say a thousand years is like a day and a day a thousand years. Who knows how long it all took. God did it. Maybe he did take billions of earthly years, day is subjective to the reader. God started making earth habital on "day " one. God is too great to put into little boxes.

[jaywalker]

The Fundies believe it all. Others 'pick and chose' which bits to believe but they never tell you How they make their choices.

[AARONDISNEY]

Genesis starts with, In the beginning God Created the heven and the earth. and the earth was without form and void. No where does the Bible say the earth was created on day one. In another part of the Bible it say a thousand years is like a day and a day a thousand years. Who knows how long it all took. God did it. Maybe he did take billions of earthly years, day is subjective to the reader. God started making earth habital on "day " one. God is too great to put into little boxes.

Where do I start on this one???
Okay. You said, "nowhere does the Bible say the earth was created on day ONE"

I certainly can't see how you can read this and say that the Bible doesn't say that God created the earth on day One. Read it carefully and as it is written without putting any other mumbo jumbo in it. Just read it as it's written....

GENESIS 1:1-5
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The word "day" is NOT subjective to the reader. "Day" can mean a number of different things, both in English and in the Hebrew (the word is yom).

In English we could use day to refer to

-a period of time - possibly consisting of years. "back in my father's day" for example.

-the period of sunlight hours
"I work in the day"

or

literal 24 hour days
"It should take me about 5 days to finish the job"

The way you tell which is meant is by the context surrounding it. Obviously the context surrounding the narrative in Genesis 1 is 24 hour days. God even overemphasizes it by saying "and the evening and the morning was the first day (as with all the other days).

To me the day-age theory is stupid. It is also heretical. The Bible says that man brought death into the world (Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:).

So if there are fossils of men older than 6,000 years ago, the Bible is wrong. But if their dating methods are erroneous (which they ARE) - the Bible is at least plausible, for those who don't follow it, and vindicated for those of us that believe it to the letter.

Also, you quote "a day is as a thousand years". This is not a good argument. The verse is simply saying that time is irrelevant to God.

Why is it that it is crystal clear what is meant in every other instance that the Bible mentions the word "day", but so many people, Christians included, stumble up in Genesis.

I don't know any Christians that think Jonah was in the belly of the fish 3 thousand years. I don't know any Christians that think Jesus was in the tomb 3 thousand years, or that during the flood it rained 40,000 years. It's clear in those instances that 24 hour days are implied and it is clear in Genesis 1 that 24 hour days are implied.

[Drkshadow03]

Where do I start on this one???
Okay. You said, "nowhere does the Bible say the earth was created on day ONE"

I certainly can't see how you can read this and say that the Bible doesn't say that God created the earth on day One. Read it carefully and as it is written without putting any other mumbo jumbo in it. Just read it as it's written....

GENESIS 1:1-5
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The word "day" is NOT subjective to the reader. "Day" can mean a number of different things, both in English and in the Hebrew (the word is yom).

In English we could use day to refer to

-a period of time - possibly consisting of years. "back in my father's day" for example.

-the period of sunlight hours
"I work in the day"

or

literal 24 hour days
"It should take me about 5 days to finish the job"

The way you tell which is meant is by the context surrounding it. Obviously the context surrounding the narrative in Genesis 1 is 24 hour days. God even overemphasizes it by saying "and the evening and the morning was the first day (as with all the other days).

To me the day-age theory is stupid. It is also heretical. The Bible says that man brought death into the world (Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:).

So if there are fossils of men older than 6,000 years ago, the Bible is wrong. But if their dating methods are erroneous (which they ARE) - the Bible is at least plausible, for those who don't follow it, and vindicated for those of us that believe it to the letter.

Also, you quote "a day is as a thousand years". This is not a good argument. The verse is simply saying that time is irrelevant to God.

Why is it that it is crystal clear what is meant in every other instance that the Bible mentions the word "day", but so many people, Christians included, stumble up in Genesis.

I don't know any Christians that think Jonah was in the belly of the fish 3 thousand years. I don't know any Christians that think Jesus was in the tomb 3 thousand years, or that during the flood it rained 40,000 years. It's clear in those instances that 24 hour days are implied and it is clear in Genesis 1 that 24 hour days are implied.

Probably because Genesis 1, 2, and 3 were never supposed to be taken as literal stories. That solves the problem of taking the days literally or not. If you understand the stories to be "myths" performing a theological function and not as the literal creation of human beings the problem is solved.

[AARONDISNEY]

Probably because Genesis 1, 2, and 3 were never supposed to be taken as literal stories. That solves the problem of taking the days literally or not. If you understand the stories to be "myths" performing a theological function and not as the literal creation of human beings the problem is solved.


The problem isn't solved for me by far. The story of Genesis is a continuous story. Adam had a son who had a son who had a son and so on and so forth. Eventually that went on and on to Noah. Noah's sons had sons and so forth all the way to Abraham. Abraham had a son who had a son who had a son named Levi. Levi had a descendant named Moses.

Hopefully you see where I'm going with this. If Genesis is simply myth, yet- I would assume you to believe that Abraham, Moses and Jesus (as I'll show Him connected with all this in a moment) were real, why do you suppose Adam to be mythological He's tied in with it all.

Tell me, in the following genealogy - where do the real people begin and the 'mythological' people end?

# And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
# Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
# Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
# Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
# Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
# Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
# Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
# Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
# Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
# Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
# Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
# Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
# Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
# Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
# Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
# Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

[Whifflingpin]

Any genealogy, father to son, is mythological, at least in the pre-DNA testing era, since no-one can be sure who his father is.

[El Viejo]

I've heard of some beliefs that the book of Genesis is false, and that the Bible should not be taken literally.

First of all, wouldn't a single falsehood in the Bible call into question its veracity as a whole? Secondly, why are interpretations so diverse when the Bible, being supposedly a book of God, should be clear in its message? If some things in the Bible take a theologian or someone as highly educated to discern, doesn't that remove its accessibility to the ordinary man?

Some may argue that the Bible was written by people and not God himself, but in any case, God was the one who instructed them to do so, and shouldn't He have made sure that it was going to be accessible to all people, or at least, timeless and free of ambiguity?

I want a Christian point of view on this topic, and please don't turn this into some kind of an evolution versus creationism debate.

Thanks.

Would a single falsehood negate the entirety of God's word? Yes. Because God wouldn't lie or mislead.

Whether the Bible should be taken literally or not depends on which sect you poll. Those who take it literally, as I did for a time, run into problems with what we know of the world now. Those who wish to make peace between current knowledge and scripture, as I eventually did, allow the Bible to be understood allegorically.

Clarity and ambiguity--According to Genesis, God created our plethora of languages at Babel. He's fully aware of the difficulties translating between cultures, let alone tongues, and that the problems worsen when millennia separate the languages and cultures. Presumably he understands that ambiguity is a necessary component of language, and that it is multiplied when one tries to translate.

Ambiguity and interpretation is unavoidable. Anyone who has misunderstood a post, or been misunderstood, can begin to understand this.

[AARONDISNEY]

Any genealogy, father to son, is mythological, at least in the pre-DNA testing era, since no-one can be sure who his father is.

You can believe that way if you want, even though that's a really big stretch, but you are really missing my point if not evading it. All I'm saying is, is that the Bible itself intends for us to take Genesis literally. If not, then there would not be genealogies going all the way back to Adam.

Also, the previous poster is saying that the Bible is incongruent with the knowledge we have now, and so we should not take it literally.

I'm curious to know, what knowledge do we have now that doesn't allow for a literal interpretation of Genesis 1? I know of none. I know of a lot of unproven theories that contradict Genesis 1, but that's just theories.

Not all scientists believe in the Big Bang, macro-evolution, 4.5 billion year old earth, etc. Most do, I'll admit, but most scientist used to think the earth was flat when the Bible declared it to be round here....

Isaiah 40:22 - # It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Most scientists believed that many people died because of 'bad blood' and needed to have some of it drained (George Washington died because of being professionally bled) - but all along the Bible said..

Leviticus 17:14 # For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

- Scientists also used to think a big rock fell faster than a little one.

To say that we can't take the Bible seriously because most scientist think (hope, wish and pray) it's wrong is not thinking critically. The Bible can be trusted.

[Drkshadow03]

The problem isn't solved for me by far. The story of Genesis is a continuous story. Adam had a son who had a son who had a son and so on and so forth. Eventually that went on and on to Noah. Noah's sons had sons and so forth all the way to Abraham. Abraham had a son who had a son who had a son named Levi. Levi had a descendant named Moses.

Hopefully you see where I'm going with this. If Genesis is simply myth, yet- I would assume you to believe that Abraham, Moses and Jesus (as I'll show Him connected with all this in a moment) were real, why do you suppose Adam to be mythological He's tied in with it all.

Tell me, in the following genealogy - where do the real people begin and the 'mythological' people end?

# And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
# Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
# Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
# Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
# Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
# Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
# Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
# Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
# Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
# Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
# Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
# Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
# Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
# Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
# Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
# Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.


Well, I should add that I am Jewish before continuing this discussion so you have some idea of where my perspective is coming from. I should also add I come from the Bible from three perspectives: theological, historical, and current knowledge. When I approach the Bible the three work together.

So for starters I'm not honestly all that concerned with Jesus's genealogy. I was, however, reading the New Testament for educational purposes recently, and if I remember correctly aren't there two genealogies found in two different books of the Gospels and I don't remember all the names being the same, nor all the generations being the same either. How would YOU explain that?

"Real" history as far as I'm concerned starts with Abraham. But this gets tricky. Did Exodus happen? Well, I think Moses was real and the Hebrews were slaves, but I'm doubtful that they numbered into the hundreds of thousands. I'm also doubtful Joshua conquered the land of Canaan. More likely he conquered some cities, intermarried with other Canaanite tribes who eventually became the ancient Israelites. So I see the Bible as an admixture of actual history, divine revelation, and good literature that offers philosophical and moral wisdom.

As far as why do people have genealogies dating back to Adam in later Biblical books is really a simple answer: because they were aware of the stories in Genesis and knew the Genealogies in those stories that could be appropriate for their own purposes.

If Adam never existed it pretty much does nothing historically or theologically to Judaism. Since there is no evidence for Adam or that a single man ever existed on this earth alone with a single woman, that we know quite reasonably that everything from names to story structure has marked similarities to other Near Eastern creation stories of the time, and the world is most likely older than 6,000 years, it is more than reasonable to conclude the Adam and Eve story in particular is myth. The same goes for Noah (it's a partial myth, I think. There probably was a real major flood--most likely not worldwide--in the mediterranian region. We pretty much know that the Flood story in Noah is a retelling of the Flood story in The Epic of Gilgamesh to the point of often being word for word the same such in measurements of the ship. So since this was an obvious copy of another mythic story found in another culture with a few theological changes, we can also guess that it too probably should be taken as a myth (based on some history perhaps, but not literal history).

[dzebra]

We pretty much know that the Flood story in Noah is a retelling of the Flood story in The Epic of Gilgamesh to the point of often being word for word the same such in measurements of the ship. So since this was an obvious copy of another mythic story found in another culture with a few theological changes, we can also guess that it too probably should be taken as a myth (based on some history perhaps, but not literal history).

I don't agree with everything you said, but I only want to comment on this part of it. I think that the fact that several versions of the flood story exist in cultures all around the world only goes to show that there really was a world wide flood. Perhaps the Epic of Gilgamesh was written down first, but that doesn't mean that all other stories were copies of it. I think all the stories were talking about something that really happened (across the world, over many cultures), just not all of them had all the details straight.

[Drkshadow03]

I don't agree with everything you said, but I only want to comment on this part of it. I think that the fact that several versions of the flood story exist in cultures all around the world only goes to show that there really was a world wide flood. Perhaps the Epic of Gilgamesh was written down first, but that doesn't mean that all other stories were copies of it. I think all the stories were talking about something that really happened (across the world, over many cultures), just not all of them had all the details straight.

It's possible.

It's also possible that the wide variety of flood myths which are often very different stories than the one we have could also be explained by the fact that human societies tend to form where water happens to be and water sources whether rivers, seas, lakes, or oceans tend to flood badly at some point in history.

So like I said, it might suggest a worldwide flood, but it also could suggest what I stated above. Societies tend to live around water, and at some point given weather patterns water bodies tend to violently flood.

[AARONDISNEY]

So for starters I'm not honestly all that concerned with Jesus's genealogy. I was, however, reading the New Testament for educational purposes recenty, and if I remember correctly aren't there two genealogies found in two different books of the Gospels and I don't remember all the names being the same, nor all the generations being the same either? How would YOU explain that?

Certainly. I can only tell you what I have learned from commentaries. The record in Matthew tells the genealogy from Joseph's line and the one in Luke tells the genealogy from Mary's line. In Matthew Joseph's father is said to be Jacob. In Luke it says that Joseph is the son of Heli.

You should know, being of the Jewish persuasion, that a female was not to be the subject of a genealogy and so the woman's husband's name is inserted. This, being Mary's line, included Joseph's name. He is called the 'son of Heli', a different way of examining the line than that of Matthew's gospel. He said 'so and so begat so and so, etc."

Heli did not 'beget' Joseph, but was called his 'son'. In verse 27 of the same chapter Selathiel is said to be the son of Neri, while 1 Chronicles 3:17 tells us Salathiel was the son of Jechoniah (whose father in law just happened to be Neri. So there's no problem at all with my interpretation.




"Real" history as far as I'm concerned starts with Abraham. But this gets tricky.
I'd say it would have to get really really tricky considering that you have to rely on the existence of Abraham from the book of Genesis. Genesis 5 has the genealogy from Adam to Noah and Genesis 11 has the genealogy from Noah to Abram. So every name recorded in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 is just a made up name until you come to Abram???!!??!?!? Come on. You can't believe that can you?

Do you just pick and choose at random what you want to believe to be true? To conclude that everyone in the Bible is mythological until Abraham came around must be a preconceived idea transported to the pages of the Bible.



Did Exodus happen? Well, I think Moses was real and the Hebrews were slaves, but I'm doubtful that they numbered into the hundreds of thousands. I'm also doubtful Joshua conquered the land of Canaan. More likely he conquered some cities, intermarried with other Canaanite tribes who eventually became the ancient Israelites. So I see the Bible as an admixture of actual history, divine revelation, and good literature that offers philosophical and moral wisdom.

That's fine. I totally disagree with it but you can believe what you want. The only point I'm trying to make is that it is not foolish to believe the Bible just as it is and not have to help it along. It clearly states what it says and I absolutely believe it. I do believe that Moses led many (possible a million) slaves out of Egypt and that it was God's hand that pulled them out.

I believe that Joshua and the Hebrews did conquer much of Canaan (what they did not take was a result of disobedience to God's commands).


As far as why do people have genealogies dating back to Adam in later Biblical books is really a simple answer: because they were aware of the stories in Genesis and knew the Genealogies in those stories that could be appropriate for their own purposes.
Uhhhh......Genesis itself has a genealogy dating back to Adam (Genesis 5).


If Adam never existed it pretty much does nothing historically or theologically to Judaism.

Nahh.....it only makes God a liar and his reason for sending His Son pointless (since it was 'in Adam' that we all sinned....Genesis 3)
Adam and Eve are essential both to Christianity and Judaism. The only thing is that Judaism got off of God's path when they stumbled over Jesus. He is said to be foolishness to the Greeks and a stumblingblock to the Jews.



Since there is no evidence for Adam or that a single man ever existed on this earth alone with a single woman, that we know quite reasonably that everything from names to story structure has marked similarities to other Near Eastern creation stories of the time, and the world is most likely older than 6,000 years, it is more than reasonable to conclude the Adam and Eve story in particular is myth.

Wow. Now this is interesting.

My point is - is that both evolutionary thinking and Creation thinking are religious, since you have to believe or disbelieve one or the other. You can't prove either.

You are right - I can't prove scientifically that Adam and Eve were once the only people on the planet. But you can't prove that the earth is older than 6000 years old. Dating methods are horribly flawed and many point to an old earth, and many point to a young earth. I think the young earth idea is more plausible.

-considering human population curves - there should be about 150,000 people per square inch if mankind is millions of years old.

-the moon is slipping away at a steady rate. 1.2 million years ago it would have been hovering right above the earth.

-the earth is slowing down at about 1/500th of a second every day. 6000 years of that would make little difference. 4 billion years of that would have made for a pretty quick spin.

there is literally enough evidence for a young earth for me to type all day, but you want to believe the opinion of many scientists, while I want to listen to the One that got this whole thing going to begin with.


The same goes for Noah (it's a partial myth, I think. There probably was a real major flood--most likely not worldwide--in the mediterranian region. We pretty much know that the Flood story in Noah is a retelling of the Flood story in The Epic of Gilgamesh to the point of often being word for word the same such in measurements of the ship. So since this was an obvious copy of another mythic story found in another culture with a few theological changes, we can also guess that it too probably should be taken as a myth (based on some history perhaps, but not literal history).

I certainly can't comment on this with any more clarity than dzebra did. I'm in total agreement with that post. The fact that worldwide there are stories of a worldwide flood helps me to believe the truth of it. I don't see how that supports your theory that it's a myth.

[blazeofglory]

The bible is true and you better belve it bub.

If take the Bible to be historically true you need to believe in the history that can be documented, lest it does not confuse / corrupt the minds of the innocent.

[Sam?]

You can believe that way if you want, even though that's a really big stretch, but you are really missing my point if not evading it. All I'm saying is, is that the Bible itself intends for us to take Genesis literally. If not, then there would not be genealogies going all the way back to Adam.

Also, the previous poster is saying that the Bible is incongruent with the knowledge we have now, and so we should not take it literally.

I'm curious to know, what knowledge do we have now that doesn't allow for a literal interpretation of Genesis 1? I know of none. I know of a lot of unproven theories that contradict Genesis 1, but that's just theories.

Not all scientists believe in the Big Bang, macro-evolution, 4.5 billion year old earth, etc. Most do, I'll admit, but most scientist used to think the earth was flat when the Bible declared it to be round here....

Isaiah 40:22 - # It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Most scientists believed that many people died because of 'bad blood' and needed to have some of it drained (George Washington died because of being professionally bled) - but all along the Bible said..

Leviticus 17:14 # For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

- Scientists also used to think a big rock fell faster than a little one.

To say that we can't take the Bible seriously because most scientist think (hope, wish and pray) it's wrong is not thinking critically. The Bible can be trusted.

In response to the bolded text, I'm going to go crazy and point out that day and night can't exist without the sun, and yet according to Genesis, God created them before the sun. It also seems a bit wierd that creating the Earth took six days, but he managed to create the entire rest of the universe, complete with a number of other planets beyond human comprehension, in a single day.

I would then go on to ask you how snails made if from Mount Ararat to Australia after the flood. And why all the sloths, a species that spends most of its time doing nothing, decided to travel all the way to Central and Southern America, no doubt passing up suitable habitats on the way. Not to mention all the koalas that decided to go to Australia, somehow knowing that, once they made their way across the ocean, they'd find the only place in the world that produces their necessary diet of gumtree leaves. And what did all the pandas eat while passing through bamboo free areas on their pilgrimage to China?
I'm not even going to ask you what the herbivors ate immediately after the flood, given that it would have killed all plant life on Earth. Or how Noah managed to simulate cold environments for the cold dwelling animals on his ark and hot environments for the reptiles etc. Or what he did with all the dung.
Actually, you know what, I think I will ask you all those questions. I don't mean to be rude, but I'd really like to know how you'd explain all this from a literalist perspective.

[AARONDISNEY]

Excellent questions, Sam? In fact, I'm not sure I can answer them all but I'll try.

first off.....

In response to the bolded text, I'm going to go crazy and point out that day and night can't exist without the sun, and yet according to Genesis, God created them before the sun.

This is actually not true. Morning and Evening can exist without the sun. A day is one rotation of the earth, it is not the sun coming up and the sun going down. One rotation of the earth, irrespective of anything, is a 24 hour day.

He doesn't say and the daylight and the darkness was the first day. He says and the morning (the beginning point of the rotation) and the evening (the ending of the rotation) were the first day.

Not a problem.





It also seems a bit wierd that creating the Earth took six days, but he managed to create the entire rest of the universe, complete with a number of other planets beyond human comprehension, in a single day.

It is equal work for God to create entire galaxies as to create a little planet called earth. He spoke them into existence. He gave a special day of creation (in my opinion) to the center of the universe, then as the Bible says he "stretched out the heavens". By the way - the scientists say that the earth is pretty much in the middle of the known universe, interesting huh? God knew that and told us so a long time ago.

Jeremiah 51:15 He has made the earth by his power, he has established the world by his wisdom, and has stretched out the heaven by his understanding.




I would then go on to ask you how snails made if from Mount Ararat to Australia after the flood.

I truthfully don't know for sure. I told you I wouldn't have all the answers. But if I were to speculate about this I would say that as the flood waters were lowering there was a lot of stuff floating around. This flood would have destroyed many homes, forests, etc.

It wouldn't be too much for me to believe that some of these types of creatures could have floated around on all this stuff that was probably everywhere until the waters dropped to where Australia is today.

Just speculation. Like I say I am not an expert on these things, I am only trying to answer your questions. Which I might point out you did not answer my objections to an old earth.




And why all the sloths, a species that spends most of its time doing nothing, decided to travel all the way to Central and Southern America, no doubt passing up suitable habitats on the way.
Again - I can only speculate that the answer would be similar to the above. I'll have to look up the answers to these questions. They are good questions, but it seems to me that it's far from disproving the flood.

If just two of any of these creatures were able to float there, then that would be sufficient to re-snail and re-sloth all these areas.



Not to mention all the koalas that decided to go to Australia, somehow knowing that, once they made their way across the ocean, they'd find the only place in the world that produces their necessary diet of gumtree leaves.
And what did all the pandas eat while passing through bamboo free areas on their pilgrimage to China?
Now - this is something I am certain you will disagree with, but my understanding is that the pre-flood world was far far far different than our world today.

What I believe to have probably happened to the earth is too much to put down in detail. So I'll try to abbreviate it as much as possible.

There's no question there was an ice age. But the question remains as to what caused it and how long did it last. Quite possibly a large disturbance broke up in our solar system causing the earth's axis to be adjusted and causing cold and hot - cold and hot.

You see craters on the moon. What could have caused there to be craters there, possibly this theoretic asteroid, piece of a comet, whatever it was breaking up and slamming the moon.

I believe this to have happened during the flood, causing massive icy areas until the earth could get back into a steadier spin. But it's still off some.

The Bible seems to indicate a canopy of water above the earth before the flood. The Jewish traditions state that there was a crystaline canopy. Probably ice (don't know). But whatever it was kept air pressure heavy, made the planet oxygen rich (ancient air bubbles from ancient sap when popped are found to be very rich in oxygen contrary to scientific theory).

So the earth's vegetation and length and quality of life were immensely superior to ours. The Bible said the whole world was covered in vegetation.
When the flood subsided and God allowed the seeds to regrow, I have no doubt that for some time afterward, the vegetation was such that koalas and pandas could survive on their necessary diets.

It wasn't until after this flood that so much of the earth became bare of vegetation. The oldest desert in the world is also the biggest - the Sahara. Desertification claims a little more real estate each year, so it is estimated that the Sahara is around 4 to 5 thousand years old. So if the earth is billions of years old, why isn't there a larger, older desert somewhere???




I'm not even going to ask you what the herbivors ate immediately after the flood, given that it would have killed all plant life on Earth.
All kinds of seeds can survive long periods of soaking in concentrations of salt water. In a lot of plants, the seed lasts better in salt water than fresh water.

What about plants floating vegetation clumps, or on pumice from the volcanoes. Pieces of many plants are still capable of asexual sprouting.

Possibly, some plants could have survived not being used on the ark of what was brought (Genesis 6:21).

Many seeds can attach themselves to animals. Others could have survived in the stomachs of the bloated, floating carcasses of dead herbivores.

There's a lot of explanations for seeds surviving. So there was not really any pressing need for plantlife to be on the ark for its survival.



Or how Noah managed to simulate cold environments for the cold dwelling animals on his ark and hot environments for the reptiles etc.

Cold dwelling and warm dwelling animals became that through adaptation within the kind. The whole earth was warm to tropical pre-flood (in my theory). That's why you find remains of vegetation from the North Pole.


Or what he did with all the dung.
I'll have to look up the answer to that...I don't think it would be that huge of a problem. It's likely that small animals were sent on board (again, just speculation) since they would live longer, take up less space and cause less problems and make less dung - then Noah would have less to dispose of (whichever way he had to do it). I would suppose there would be a chute to release it into the flooding.

The Bible doesn't go into great detail of the intricacies of the ark. Just the size of it.



Actually, you know what, I think I will ask you all those questions. I don't mean to be rude, but I'd really like to know how you'd explain all this from a literalist perspective

I may not have answered to your satisfaction. I have only begun to look into any of the things on this subject for the past 2 or 3 months. I am currently learning that the questions I had always thought were really tough do have legitimate answers.

Some of the questions I have for the old earth and evolution crowd also have answers. I just find the young earth, creation answers more plausible. Plus - I know the Creator of it all personally.

[Drkshadow03]

Do you just pick and choose at random what you want to believe to be true? To conclude that everyone in the Bible is mythological until Abraham came around must be a preconceived idea transported to the pages of the Bible.



Not really. Genesis up until Abraham as myth is a well established belief within scholarly communities and within the Jewish Conservative and Reform movements, and probably within more liberal versions of Christianity as well I would imagine (but don't quote me on that last one). So it's not like I'm sitting here and choosing at random.

It should be noted that when I say "myth" I don't mean "untrue," I simply mean not to be taken literally. The first three books of Genesis are probably some of the most important theological books and set the corner stone of Jewish belief.


Nahh.....it only makes God a liar and his reason for sending His Son pointless (since it was 'in Adam' that we all sinned....Genesis 3)
Adam and Eve are essential both to Christianity and Judaism. The only thing is that Judaism got off of God's path when they stumbled over Jesus. He is said to be foolishness to the Greeks and a stumblingblock to the Jews.

Since the concept of Original Sin is pretty much a blasphemy that is foreign to Judaism, let me repeat that Adam is not all that theologically important.

You should never suggest that G-d lies, that too is a sin. G-d NEVER lies!


My point is - is that both evolutionary thinking and Creation thinking are religious, since you have to believe or disbelieve one or the other. You can't prove either.

You are right - I can't prove scientifically that Adam and Eve were once the only people on the planet. But you can't prove that the earth is older than 6000 years old. Dating methods are horribly flawed and many point to an old earth, and many point to a young earth. I think the young earth idea is more plausible.

-considering human population curves - there should be about 150,000 people per square inch if mankind is millions of years old.

-the moon is slipping away at a steady rate. 1.2 million years ago it would have been hovering right above the earth.

-the earth is slowing down at about 1/500th of a second every day. 6000 years of that would make little difference. 4 billion years of that would have made for a pretty quick spin.

there is literally enough evidence for a young earth for me to type all day, but you want to believe the opinion of many scientists, while I want to listen to the One that got this whole thing going to begin with.

Dude, if you want to believe in bad science be my guest. Whatever helps you get to sleep at night.

[AARONDISNEY]

Genesis up until Abraham as myth is a well established belief within scholarly communities and within the Jewish Conservative and Reform movements, and probably within more liberal versions of Christianity as well I would imagine (but don't quote me on that last one). So it's not like I'm sitting here and choosing at random.
Okay, that's fine. But please tell me within the text what suggests it's mythological. It completely sounds as though Moses intended it to be taken literally. To take it as myth requires importing that idea.

Please give me one piece of evidence from the Scriptures themselves that suggests that the reader should not take it literally.




It should be noted that when I say "myth" I don't mean "untrue," I simply mean not to be taken literally. The first three books of Genesis are probably some of the most important theological books and set the corner stone of Jewish belief.

I'm having trouble separating myth from untrue. What do you mean? Do you take parts of the stories as true and parts as untrue? I can't understand your exegesis.



Since the concept of Original Sin is pretty much a blasphemy that is foreign to Judaism, let me repeat that Adam is not all that theologically important.

So in Genesis 3 when death and the curse on the earth was announced, that meant basically nothing? In verse 15 when the serpent was said to be at enmity with mankind and that an offspring of the 'woman' would crush his head - that meant nothing?????

It seems that all the problems that man made and that God had to deal with us about (in whichever way you choose to believe He does so) find their foundation in Genesis 3.




You should never suggest that G-d lies, that too is a sin. G-d NEVER lies!
I did not suggest that God lies. You are misrepresenting my point. If God said something happened (as we both believe) and it didn't actually happen (as you believe) then that would make God a liar. I am saying He did NOT lie, you are saying that He did, or at least that's what it sounds like. I may be misunderstanding you, but you need to clearly explain what you think God meant in Genesis 1 (if not what He said).




Dude, if you want to believe in bad science be my guest. Whatever helps you get to sleep at night.

Okay, then please explain why my statements were so ludicrous. To dismiss it all as 'bad science' makes it seem like you don't know how to answer them. If you don't - it's no big deal. I can't (yet) answer all the arguments against my theory, but I'd at least offer suggestions and say I'm not sure. So please answer them if you can - if you can't at least admit it.

[Pendragon]

In response to the bolded text, I'm going to go crazy and point out that day and night can't exist without the sun, and yet according to Genesis, God created them before the sun. It also seems a bit wierd that creating the Earth took six days, but he managed to create the entire rest of the universe, complete with a number of other planets beyond human comprehension, in a single day.

I would then go on to ask you how snails made if from Mount Ararat to Australia after the flood. And why all the sloths, a species that spends most of its time doing nothing, decided to travel all the way to Central and Southern America, no doubt passing up suitable habitats on the way. Not to mention all the koalas that decided to go to Australia, somehow knowing that, once they made their way across the ocean, they'd find the only place in the world that produces their necessary diet of gumtree leaves. And what did all the pandas eat while passing through bamboo free areas on their pilgrimage to China?
I'm not even going to ask you what the herbivors ate immediately after the flood, given that it would have killed all plant life on Earth. Or how Noah managed to simulate cold environments for the cold dwelling animals on his ark and hot environments for the reptiles etc. Or what he did with all the dung.
Actually, you know what, I think I will ask you all those questions. I don't mean to be rude, but I'd really like to know how you'd explain all this from a literalist perspective.
The sun is our preception of night and day. Don't put a being like God down to human standards. From space the rotation of the earth is what makes a day.

Did you ever think that the animals today and what were created might just be two different things due to Evolution, that is adapting to a new environment? The Bible calls it "Dry Land". We would call it "Pangaea". The Super Continent broke up in the flood.

[Whifflingpin]

Whifflingpin: Any genealogy, father to son, is mythological, at least in the pre-DNA testing era, since no-one can be sure who his father is.

Aarondisney: You can believe that way if you want, even though that's a really big stretch, but you are really missing my point if not evading it.

I was evading it, not missing it, and making a point of my own. And it is not "a really big stretch." Any male-line genealogy is based on a mixture of courtesy and wishful thinking. It only takes one errant wife to make a nonsense of the whole thing. To suppose that there were no errant wives in a genealogy stretching supposedly over 6000 years - now that is a big stretch.

If I'd been feeling a little less frivolous, I'd have gone for something like Drkshadow03's conclusion, while maintaining considerable scepticism of the whole genealogy. The lifespans in the Genesis genealogy don't appear to relate to historical people of the same species as their supposed descendants.

[AARONDISNEY]

The lifespans in the Genesis genealogy don't appear to relate to historical people of the same species as their supposed descendants.

First of all you are assuming an atmosphere similar to our own. Bad assumption. I'll even give you a link from an evolutionary old earth thinking article....here.....
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE1DF123EF93AA15753C1A9619482 60

Imagine a world with 50% more oxygen in the air. It would be exciting just to breathe. And the atmospheric pressure was likely greater. It was a worldwide hyperbaric chamber.

It is absolutely plausible that life spans exceeded 900 years. There were not the genetic defects that there are now there was (theoretically) a crystaline canopy above the earth as a 7th atmospheric layer. This is according to some interpretation of the origin of part of the flood and Jewish tradition. If it is so, which I think is likely though admittedly I can't prove, there would be no UV rays damaging skin and organs. Life was much better pre-flood.

Now the article with the link discusses dinosaurs and says that the amber bubbles are from millions of years ago when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. That's baloney. The dinosaurs roamed the earth much more recently than that.

God made the land animals on day 6 and they lived among humans. There are all kinds of pictograph drawings of dinosaurs from civilizations dating only a couple thousand years old.

There is much literature speaking of dragons, and not as though they were mythical, but real.

The Chinese calender has 11 real animals and 1 fake one??? Could it be when they made that up the 12th one was real?

If you want to see some of these things go here....
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

The Bible talks about dinosaurs...it just doesn't call them dinosaurs because the word dinosaur has only been around for a couple hundred years. They were called dragons and sometimes more specifically "Behemoth" - read this and tell me what it was if not a dinosaur.


15 ¶ Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

[Sam?]

Excellent questions, Sam? In fact, I'm not sure I can answer them all but I'll try.

first off.....


This is actually not true. Morning and Evening can exist without the sun. A day is one rotation of the earth, it is not the sun coming up and the sun going down. One rotation of the earth, irrespective of anything, is a 24 hour day.

He doesn't say and the daylight and the darkness was the first day. He says and the morning (the beginning point of the rotation) and the evening (the ending of the rotation) were the first day.

Not a problem.

'God said, 'let there be light', and there was light. God saw that light was good, and God devided light from darkness. God called light 'day', and darkness he called 'night'. Evening came and morning came: the first day.'

Light comes from the sun, for starters. Where did the light come from before the sun? As to morning and evening, it's always morning and evening somewhere on the Earth. It's morning and evening somewhere as you read this, it'll still be morning and evening somewhere if you come back and read it again in a few hours. Morning and evening are defined by the Earth's relative position to the sun, they're not globally universal.



It is equal work for God to create entire galaxies as to create a little planet called earth. He spoke them into existence. He gave a special day of creation (in my opinion) to the center of the universe, then as the Bible says he "stretched out the heavens". By the way - the scientists say that the earth is pretty much in the middle of the known universe, interesting huh? God knew that and told us so a long time ago.

Jeremiah 51:15 He has made the earth by his power, he has established the world by his wisdom, and has stretched out the heaven by his understanding.

If it's equal work, then why did it take God six days to create Earth?
Could you please give a source to your claim about scientists saying we're the centre of the universe? Because I've never once come across that once. And I'd think, since we have no way of knowing how big the universe is or even if it ever ends, there's no possible way to know where the centre is, or even if there is a centre.


I truthfully don't know for sure. I told you I wouldn't have all the answers. But if I were to speculate about this I would say that as the flood waters were lowering there was a lot of stuff floating around. This flood would have destroyed many homes, forests, etc.

It wouldn't be too much for me to believe that some of these types of creatures could have floated around on all this stuff that was probably everywhere until the waters dropped to where Australia is today.

Just speculation. Like I say I am not an expert on these things, I am only trying to answer your questions. Which I might point out you did not answer my objections to an old earth.

Tell you what, how about you try floating on a piece of wood just from New Zealand to Australia without anything to eat or drink. What do you think will happen? And that's nothing compared to the distance from Mount Ararat.
And if the only two snails floated to Australia before the flood had even fully subsided, how did they then manage to cross again and populate the rest of the world?


Again - I can only speculate that the answer would be similar to the above. I'll have to look up the answers to these questions. They are good questions, but it seems to me that it's far from disproving the flood.

If just two of any of these creatures were able to float there, then that would be sufficient to re-snail and re-sloth all these areas.

Again, what did they eat and drink while floating around? And how long did it take for the waters to subside, because I imagine it'd take some time to float all the way to the other side of the world even if you didn't die on the way. It also seems a bit coincidental that the koalas just happened to float to their natural habitat, and arrived just as the flood subsided, allowing them to touch land and avoid floating away again.
But those aren't the only problems. Are you honestly telling me two elephants floated all the way to Africa on a piece of driftwood? Did they both happen to get on the same piece, or was it just wild coincidence that both pieces went the same way?
And this still doesn't explain animals like the snail that can be found all over the world.
And I'm pretty sure, since they were all floating along from the same place, they would have followed the same currents and ended up far less evenly distributed.
You cannot deny the world today, and as it is it quite clearly contradicts the flood myth, at least until you come up with some answers to these questions. Until you can, the flood is simply incompatible with the world as it is today.


Now - this is something I am certain you will disagree with, but my understanding is that the pre-flood world was far far far different than our world today.

What I believe to have probably happened to the earth is too much to put down in detail. So I'll try to abbreviate it as much as possible.

There's no question there was an ice age. But the question remains as to what caused it and how long did it last. Quite possibly a large disturbance broke up in our solar system causing the earth's axis to be adjusted and causing cold and hot - cold and hot.

You see craters on the moon. What could have caused there to be craters there, possibly this theoretic asteroid, piece of a comet, whatever it was breaking up and slamming the moon.

I believe this to have happened during the flood, causing massive icy areas until the earth could get back into a steadier spin. But it's still off some.

The Bible seems to indicate a canopy of water above the earth before the flood. The Jewish traditions state that there was a crystaline canopy. Probably ice (don't know). But whatever it was kept air pressure heavy, made the planet oxygen rich (ancient air bubbles from ancient sap when popped are found to be very rich in oxygen contrary to scientific theory).

How did the sunlight necessary for things to grow make it through this canopy? Why didn't the ice melt? And where is all the flood water now? There's not enough water on the planet to cover all land.


So the earth's vegetation and length and quality of life were immensely superior to ours. The Bible said the whole world was covered in vegetation.
When the flood subsided and God allowed the seeds to regrow, I have no doubt that for some time afterward, the vegetation was such that koalas and pandas could survive on their necessary diets.

Are you saying those animals lived on dead leaves soaked in salt water for months (since the water took long enough to subside for them to float halfway across the world)?


It wasn't until after this flood that so much of the earth became bare of vegetation. The oldest desert in the world is also the biggest - the Sahara. Desertification claims a little more real estate each year, so it is estimated that the Sahara is around 4 to 5 thousand years old. So if the earth is billions of years old, why isn't there a larger, older desert somewhere???

The flood itself would have killed all plant life. As to the desert, it's irrelevant, and only applicable if one assumes the Earth has been constant since it formed. You've admitted to at least one ice age already, and from a global time scale, there's been near constant geological shift all over the world since it formed.


All kinds of seeds can survive long periods of soaking in concentrations of salt water. In a lot of plants, the seed lasts better in salt water than fresh water.

What about plants floating vegetation clumps, or on pumice from the volcanoes. Pieces of many plants are still capable of asexual sprouting.

Possibly, some plants could have survived not being used on the ark of what was brought (Genesis 6:21).

Many seeds can attach themselves to animals. Others could have survived in the stomachs of the bloated, floating carcasses of dead herbivores.

There's a lot of explanations for seeds surviving. So there was not really any pressing need for plantlife to be on the ark for its survival.

For some seeds to survive is possible. But all the plants would have died, and even if there was some way for the surviving seeds to cover the world, plant themselves and grow, most if not all living creatures would have starved to death before they'd sprouted anything edible.


Cold dwelling and warm dwelling animals became that through adaptation within the kind. The whole earth was warm to tropical pre-flood (in my theory). That's why you find remains of vegetation from the North Pole.

Reptiles are cold blooded, they need external heat to survive, adaptation has nothing to do with it.


I'll have to look up the answer to that...I don't think it would be that huge of a problem. It's likely that small animals were sent on board (again, just speculation) since they would live longer, take up less space and cause less problems and make less dung - then Noah would have less to dispose of (whichever way he had to do it). I would suppose there would be a chute to release it into the flooding.

The Bible doesn't go into great detail of the intricacies of the ark. Just the size of it.

Do you have any idea how many species of animal there are in the world? There are thousands of different species of beetles alone, and for you to say that the lady beetle and the rhinocerus beetle adapted from the same creature is tantamount to admitting evolution. The amount of dung produced by so many animals would fill and sink the ark faster than Noah and his family could discard of it. Not to mention the disease it would spread.


I may not have answered to your satisfaction. I have only begun to look into any of the things on this subject for the past 2 or 3 months. I am currently learning that the questions I had always thought were really tough do have legitimate answers.

Some of the questions I have for the old earth and evolution crowd also have answers. I just find the young earth, creation answers more plausible. Plus - I know the Creator of it all personally.

You know the Creator personally? There are people all around the world from other religions who feel exactly the same way about their gods. I'll address your objections to an old Earth next time, as I've spent too long on this reply already.

[AARONDISNEY]

Sam,
It's late and I have to work tomorrow. I may not get to your post for a couple of days, if at all, it kind of seems like futile back and forthing to me.

The problem is, you are expecting me to speculate enough to make a plausible argument to your tastes. For all I know - the sloths, snails, etc. jumped a boat several years later and got there.

It's really not that difficult for me to work out.

It's just odd that its so hard for you to figure how animals got from one place to another and yet you have no problems with the theory that they came from goo.


You really seem to have the problem though. You have to plausibly explain to me how a slimy rock can become thinking, rational, beings.

Also I want to point out your strawman. You said that the Ark could not hold that many species of animals. True. But the Bible says that 2 or 7 of each KIND got on the ark. And I think you knew that.

[Sam?]

Sam,
It's late and I have to work tomorrow. I may not get to your post for a couple of days, if at all, it kind of seems like futile back and forthing to me.

The problem is, you are expecting me to speculate enough to make a plausible argument to your tastes. For all I know - the sloths, snails, etc. jumped a boat several years later and got there.

It's really not that difficult for me to work out.

It's just odd that its so hard for you to figure how animals got from one place to another and yet you have no problems with the theory that they came from goo.

I don't believe they came from goo, see below. According to evolution, it makes perfect sense that, when life first left the oceans, it touched base on every continent. From there it evolved to suit the environments it found. That perfectly explains why you only find pandas in china, sloths in Central and Southern America, and koalas in Australia.


You really seem to have the problem though. You have to plausibly explain to me how a slimy rock can become thinking, rational, beings.

I don't claim life came from goo on a rock. Nobody who knows anything about abiogenesis does. Life most likely, given out current understanding, came from the ocean (at the time containing all the necessary ingredients), massive electrical storms (to give said ingredients that first jolt of life), and billions of years (of the ocean constantly being hit with electricity until finally that one strike landed in just the right place at just the right time). It may seem unlikely at first, but if you consider the sheer number of planets we know of, and the amount of time involved, it's actually more than likely, mathematically, that it's happened on other planets as well. Nevertheless, nobody who knows what they're talking about will claim to know for sure just yet, we're still working on it. But whether abiogenesis is accurate or not lends no weight at all to your claims if you can't support them with repeatedly testable evidence.
From abiogenisis we move onto evolution, a completely different and unrelated area of science. Life spread out, and adapted to its environments through genetic mutation and natural selection. Different environments meant different kinds of mutations were beneficial for survival, and those best suited bread, passing on the succesful genes. In time (a long, long, long time) life mutated into the variety we find today. Humans think the way they do because those who did were more succesful at surviving and breeding. Our thought capacity has led to our global dominance. There are still monkeys because we didn't evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor with them, which isn't around. Other species can't reason like we can because they haven't needed to. The shark is near perfect at what it does, it has no need to evolve our level of sentience, just as we have no need to breathe underwater.
For evolution, we have mountains of evidence. We can see it in all the different breeds of dog, in the way we have to get new flu vaccinations every year because the virus evolves to overcome the previous vaccination. We can see it in the fossil reccords, which may have a few gaps, but if you understand how fossils come into being, and how rarely, is actually far more robust than we could have hoped for. The reason we haven't seen any species evolve into a completely different species is because of how enormously long that takes. Millions of years at least. For a better explanation of evolution I would suggest reading 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins. To my knowledge, anti-evolutionists are yet to come up with a single 'flaw' he doesn't cover in that book.


Also I want to point out your strawman. You said that the Ark could not hold that many species of animals. True. But the Bible says that 2 or 7 of each KIND got on the ark. And I think you knew that.

It's hard to counter that without knowing your definition of 'kind', but if you read through my post, you'll notice I allowed for only one breed of elephant on the ark, when now there are more. It seems to me, however, that to reduce the number in any meaningful way, you'd have to accept evolution as real, not just adaptation.

I'd also point out, that as you've provided no rebuttle, it seems I've proven Genesis to be innacurate, and you said yourself that if even one part of the bible were false, the whole thing might as well be regarded as false.

[AARONDISNEY]

Again. No time. But all that long list of garbage you just typed is mere speculation. No one has ever seen life created from non-living material. You say it rained on the rocks for billions of years and caused life. I say the animal got to Australia somehow.

These are both speculations. However, I can observe animals moving aboard ships or drifting things. You can't observe life forming from non living material. It's all religious.

[Whifflingpin]

"But all that long list of garbage you just typed is mere speculation"

Time to stop?

[Pendragon]

Also I want to point out your strawman. You said that the Ark could not hold that many species of animals. True. But the Bible says that 2 or 7 of each KIND got on the ark. And I think you knew that.
Aaron, I like you, and respect your stand. However, this is poor logic and worse argument. This would mean that there were whole species that were wiped out by the flood, and this just isn't a supported fact. I reiterate what I had to say, that the animals today and those of creation are two different things.

This is supported, as everyone knows that animals evolve and even mutate, thus giving more species. A horse today is not an eohippus, for example, but an eohippus is a horse ancestor. No modern horse would exist without an eohippus’ prior existence.

Perhaps there were not that many original species, but they gave rise to many others after the breaking up of Pangaea.

God Bless

Pen

[Sam?]

Again. No time. But all that long list of garbage you just typed is mere speculation. No one has ever seen life created from non-living material. You say it rained on the rocks for billions of years and caused life. I say the animal got to Australia somehow.

These are both speculations. However, I can observe animals moving aboard ships or drifting things. You can't observe life forming from non living material. It's all religious.

Funny, because however many times I read what I wrote, I fail to see the part where I said anything about rain on rocks. I do, however, notice the part where I specifically mention that, at this point in history, abiogenesis is merely the most likely cause of life on Earth we know of. I specifically said we don't know for sure.
Can you observe all the sloths in the world catching the same boat to the same place that just happenes to be their perfect environment? Can you see two single sloths surviving on Mount Ararat with nothing to eat, no trees to hide in, and surrounded by every carnivorous predator there is?

In any case, since you again fail to counter my disproving of Genesis, all this is irrelevant, because, by your own previously stated standpoint, you can't believe in the bible anymore anyway.

[Wintermute]

I reiterate what I had to say, that the animals today and those of creation are two different things.

This is supported, as everyone knows that animals evolve and even mutate, thus giving more species. A horse today is not an eohippus, for example, but an eohippus is a horse ancestor. No modern horse would exist without an eohippus’ prior existence.

Perhaps there were not that many original species, but they gave rise to many others after the breaking up of Pangaea.

God Bless

Pen

Hi Dale,

I've said it before and I mean it, you are a classy, intelligent, gentle Christian. If there were more like you.....

Almost daily we hear of new planets being discovered in our galaxy. Lately, astronomers are finding smaller and smaller earth size planets orbiting stars that are many light years from out solar system. The growing consensus seems to be that there are lots and lots of planetary bodies out there. So I'm wondering what effect the discovery of both simple and intelligent life on another world would have on our belief that we earthly humans are special amongst all the billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and planets?

Does there seem to you to be a deep desire for humans to want to be special? To hope that the creator of this amazingly huge universe would choose our little chunk of rock to generate life and to send its only messenger to bring the good news that while life is short-- that there is an afterlife of eternal happiness.

Because I respect your ideas and thoughts, I was wondering how you felt about this.

Thanks,
Doug

[Pendragon]

Hi Dale,

I've said it before and I mean it, you are a classy, intelligent, gentle Christian. If there were more like you.....

Almost daily we hear of new planets being discovered in our galaxy. Lately, astronomers are finding smaller and smaller earth size planets orbiting stars that are many light years from out solar system. The growing consensus seems to be that there are lots and lots of planetary bodies out there. So I'm wondering what effect the discovery of both simple and intelligent life on another world would have on our belief that we earthly humans are special amongst all the billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and planets?

Does there seem to you to be a deep desire for humans to want to be special? To hope that the creator of this amazingly huge universe would choose our little chunk of rock to generate life and to send its only messenger to bring the good news that while life is short-- that there is an afterlife of eternal happiness.

Because I respect your ideas and thoughts, I was wondering how you felt about this.

Thanks,
DougHi Doug.

Yes, I think that man is desperate to prove that he is of value, instead of simply accepting the fact that we are here, we exist, therefore we must have some purpose. That there many be more planets with intelligent life is pretty much a given, both scientifically and Biblically. What makes people think that this world alone would be all that a being as powerful as we call God would create? God is a God of variety, witness how many different types of say, beetles, there are. But all of His creation might not exist so well together. Witness how man destroys species, not to mention his own kind. What would happen if entire worlds were allowed to meet? I think H.G. Wells had the right idea there.

God Bless

Pen

[AARONDISNEY]

Funny, because however many times I read what I wrote, I fail to see the part where I said anything about rain on rocks. I do, however, notice the part where I specifically mention that, at this point in history, abiogenesis is merely the most likely cause of life on Earth we know of. I specifically said we don't know for sure.
Can you observe all the sloths in the world catching the same boat to the same place that just happenes to be their perfect environment? Can you see two single sloths surviving on Mount Ararat with nothing to eat, no trees to hide in, and surrounded by every carnivorous predator there is?

In any case, since you again fail to counter my disproving of Genesis, all this is irrelevant, because, by your own previously stated standpoint, you can't believe in the bible anymore anyway.


I think I'm gonna get out of this discussion after this post. The only point I've wanted to make during this whole discussion would be to point out that these are 2 religious views. Not one scientific one and one of faith. They are both of faith because, as you've stated,
But whether abiogenesis is accurate or not lends no weight at all to your claims if you can't support them with repeatedly testable evidence.

You can't support your claims with testable evidence and neither can I. You made some points that I tried to explain as best as I could. It isn't hard for me to believe that animals got to where they needed to be. Pendragon mentioned Pangaea - I have a little trouble with the idea of continental drift since all the continents are connected anyway even now (there's land under those oceans ya know), but I could be wrong.

The thing is, I've presented some arguments to you that you've completely ignored. I'll copy and paste them once again and if you want you can respond, you don't have to but you can. I doubt you'll be able to scientifically answer them but you'll tell me what you imagine would have happened according to your preconceptions, just like I do with your arguments.

Why do we do this?? Because we must respond with what we imagine since NONE of this (evolution or creation) is scientific.

Here's the arguments

THE BIG BANG THEORY VIOLATES THE LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF ANGULAR MOMENTUM.
When the spinning mass that allegedly contained all the matter in the universe broke apart, why do many moons (8 of 91 known in our solar system) spin backwards. 3 planets in our solar system spin in opposite directions to the others. Some entire galaxies spin in different directions.

Why does this violate this law.

EVOLUTION VIOLATES THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.
Everything is working toward ruin unless energy is harnessed and directed to oppose this law. And we evolved from bacteria???

The THEORY violates a LAW.

WHY IS THERE NOT 150,000 PEOPLE PER SQUARE FOOT?
Every 10 - 12 years in recent history we observe the Earth population growing by 1 Billion or better. This kind of population curve could not hold up with mankind even being around for 100,000 years - let alone millions of years.

WE ARE LOSING THE MOON SLOWLY.
It is estimated that at the rate the moon is slowly going away from the earth. 1.2 billion years ago it would have been hovering right above the surface of the earth. Even if the moon were half the distance from earth that it is now, the tides would destroy almost any living area on the earth.

THE EARTH IS SPINNING 1/500TH OF A SECOND SLOWER EVERY DAY.
6000 years of history would not be a problem for this, but 4.5 billion years. The earth would be going so fast that any living thing would have been slung off (trying to be humorous here, but you get the point). Wind speeds would have been unbearable.

WHY ARE THERE STILL COMETS IN THE UNIVERSE??
Scientists say that a comet's life could not exceed 10,000 years since it is constantly losing material. So if comets were created by the BIG BANG, why do we still have comets? The best answer they've come up with? The (imaginary) "Oort cloud of comets" a cloud that creates comets thousands of astronomical units away that has never been observed.

As you see, this stuff is a long long long road from scientific. Creation is a long road from scientific. I just get tired of hearing "Christianity vs. Science" - it is a real bad misnomer. It's actually the "Bible vs. Pseudoscience".

I think I'm out of this one, guys. If you want to respond to my questions - GREAT! If not, that's fine too. You can believe in these theories and I'll believe in the Bible. If I'm wrong, no biggie. If you're wrong...that could be a problem and it's not a problem I'd want to see anyone have to face.

Just to answer one question I didn't get to before that you had though, Sam. You said there's not enough water on this earth to completely cover it. I agree. But if you flattened the earth out you could cover it 2 and a half miles deep in the water we have now.

In the Book of Psalms, (can't remember where right off the bat) it talks about the flood pushing the mountains up (paraphrase) and making valleys and ocean basins (which it naturally would have done given that much water).

There are marine fossils found on top of Everest. That's not to say Everest was under water at its present height, but that it was pushed up by the flood. The Grand Canyon was created by the flood and not by that little river. Where the river enters is lower than some of the high points of the canyon walls and rivers don't flow uphill.

So I'll just conclude my part of this thing now and let it continue with Pendragon if he wants to. I think I'm out.

Take care, guys.

ps - Let me just predict something you may think concerning all these things. You may say that since we can't be sure that all these trends that have been listed continuously were working at the same rate then there is ample room for serious doubt of my conclusions. I would say that you would be right.

Yet the basis for macro-evolution is micro-evolution. Small changes within the kinds are thought to be evidence for major changes that would make different kinds of animals and organisms. So if there is any problem with my reasoning, you have to import that problem to your own reasoning.

Thanks again for a lively conversation, you get the last word.

[Sam?]

I think I'm gonna get out of this discussion after this post. The only point I've wanted to make during this whole discussion would be to point out that these are 2 religious views. Not one scientific one and one of faith. They are both of faith because, as you've stated,

You can't support your claims with testable evidence and neither can I. You made some points that I tried to explain as best as I could. It isn't hard for me to believe that animals got to where they needed to be. Pendragon mentioned Pangaea - I have a little trouble with the idea of continental drift since all the continents are connected anyway even now (there's land under
those oceans ya know), but I could be wrong.

The thing is, I've presented some arguments to you that you've completely ignored. I'll copy and paste them once again and if you want you can respond, you don't have to but you can. I doubt you'll be able to scientifically answer them but you'll tell me what you imagine would have happened according to your preconceptions, just like I do with your arguments.

Why do we do this?? Because we must respond with what we imagine since NONE of this (evolution or creation) is scientific.

Here's the arguments

THE BIG BANG THEORY VIOLATES THE LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF ANGULAR MOMENTUM.
When the spinning mass that allegedly contained all the matter in the universe broke apart, why do many moons (8 of 91 known in our solar system) spin backwards. 3 planets in our solar system spin in opposite directions to the others. Some entire galaxies spin in different directions.

Evidently you don't understand the big bang theory. The theory begins with all matter compressed into a miniscule size. Where that matter came from, or what was before it, we don't know, but the big bang theory covers what happened directly afterwards, not before.
For whatever reason, that single dense piece of compressed matter expanded with sudden velocity. The universe as it is now did not pop out ready made. What popped out was space, time, all the laws of physics, and a whole heap of elements. The evidence for this is that the universe is still expanding, though it's slowed down a bit since then. We've also picked up some of the original energy as microwaves bounced back at us from the edge of the universe. They're currently building a particle accelerator that will be able to reproduce the conditions of those first few moments of existence. It should be up and running some time this year.
Now, all mass emits/has gravity. It might not be noticeable until you come across something as big as the Earth, but everything has it. Two particles of dust come together in that empty space, drawn by one another's field of gravity, together they've just doubled their pull, attracting more matter. The more they attract, the greater the pull, and again, in turn, the more they attract. This is how all the planets, moons and stars formed. Directional spin has nothing to do with the 'big bang' itself.


Why does this violate this law.

EVOLUTION VIOLATES THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.
Everything is working toward ruin unless energy is harnessed and directed to oppose this law. And we evolved from bacteria???

That law applies to matter itself. Decay isn't hereditarily passed on from generation to generation. You might as well ask how they keep making better iPods. Your question only reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both evolution and physics.


The THEORY violates a LAW.

WHY IS THERE NOT 150,000 PEOPLE PER SQUARE FOOT?
Every 10 - 12 years in recent history we observe the Earth population growing by 1 Billion or better. This kind of population curve could not hold up with mankind even being around for 100,000 years - let alone millions of years.

Note the key words there: recent history. You can't apply present conditions to the past. People died all the time in the past. There was more war, more famine, more pestilence, and they didn't have the medical technology to do anything at all about it. You've also got to consider that in the past most people were lucky to live past thirty. Now the planet's full of old people. It might be worth your while having a look at Japan's current condition. If their birth rate carries on the way it's going, soon there won't be enough young people to run the country.
You cannot treat human birth rates as a constant. I'd also point out that according to your understanding, the growing human population would break the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as well.


WE ARE LOSING THE MOON SLOWLY.
It is estimated that at the rate the moon is slowly going away from the earth. 1.2 billion years ago it would have been hovering right above the surface of the earth. Even if the moon were half the distance from earth that it is now, the tides would destroy almost any living area on the earth.

Lucky for us then that life has only been around for about four hundred million years. Also, it might be worth your while clicking here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html for a more robust response than I can give you.


THE EARTH IS SPINNING 1/500TH OF A SECOND SLOWER EVERY DAY.
6000 years of history would not be a problem for this, but 4.5 billion years. The earth would be going so fast that any living thing would have been slung off (trying to be humorous here, but you get the point). Wind speeds would have been unbearable.

Like I said, even assuming the spin has always been constant, life has only been around for about four hundred million years, so nothing was around to be flung off anyway.


WHY ARE THERE STILL COMETS IN THE UNIVERSE??
Scientists say that a comet's life could not exceed 10,000 years since it is constantly losing material. So if comets were created by the BIG BANG, why do we still have comets? The best answer they've come up with? The (imaginary) "Oort cloud of comets" a cloud that creates comets thousands of astronomical units away that has never been observed.

Nobody says comets were created by the Big Bang, as you'll know from my previous explanation. As to the origins of comets, we don't know for sure. Science doesn't know everything yet. But that doesn't make your magical-man-created-everything theory any more accurate.


As you see, this stuff is a long long long road from scientific. Creation is a long road from scientific. I just get tired of hearing "Christianity vs. Science" - it is a real bad misnomer. It's actually the "Bible vs. Pseudoscience".

As I can see, you don't have a very firm understanding of what science is. It is a method of studying observable reality, not the truth. It constantly questions itself and improves its knowledge, but doesn't claim to know everything. What science teaches is, quite openly, simply the most likely truth given our current understanding. The Oort Cloud is a hypothesis, not a theory, and I've explained the difference to you in a previous post.
So this stuff, actually, is not just close to science, it's science by its very definition.


I think I'm out of this one, guys. If you want to respond to my questions - GREAT! If not, that's fine too. You can believe in these theories and I'll believe in the Bible. If I'm wrong, no biggie. If you're wrong...that could be a problem and it's not a problem I'd want to see anyone have to face.

Just to answer one question I didn't get to before that you had though, Sam. You said there's not enough water on this earth to completely cover it. I agree. But if you flattened the earth out you could cover it 2 and a half miles deep in the water we have now.

Source for this please.


In the Book of Psalms, (can't remember where right off the bat) it talks about the flood pushing the mountains up (paraphrase) and making valleys and ocean basins (which it naturally would have done given that much water).

There are marine fossils found on top of Everest. That's not to say Everest was under water at its present height, but that it was pushed up by the flood. The Grand Canyon was created by the flood and not by that little river. Where the river enters is lower than some of the high points of the canyon walls and rivers don't flow uphill.

Name me one recorded occurance of flood waters pushing up a mountain. You can't, because water cannot form mountains, movement beneath the earth forms mountains. And yes, it is quite possible that at some time before it was formed the land that is now Everest was underwater, but that lends no veracity to your flood claims.


So I'll just conclude my part of this thing now and let it continue with Pendragon if he wants to. I think I'm out.

Take care, guys.

ps - Let me just predict something you may think concerning all these things. You may say that since we can't be sure that all these trends that have been listed continuously were working at the same rate then there is ample room for serious doubt of my conclusions. I would say that you would be right.

Yet the basis for macro-evolution is micro-evolution. Small changes within the kinds are thought to be evidence for major changes that would make different kinds of animals and organisms. So if there is any problem with my reasoning, you have to import that problem to your own reasoning.

Nobody states that evolution follows a constant pace.


Thanks again for a lively conversation, you get the last word.

Again I'll point out that I've disproved Genesis. I'll also add that the bible incorrectly claims pi is exactly three, and that bats are birds. Which means that, according to your own previously stated standpoint, you can't believe in the bible anymore anyway.

Thanks for your time. If you every get the chance, I recomend reading 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' by Bill Bryson. It's an easy, fun read that lightly covers everything you've brought up without ever preaching against religion of any kind.

[Drkshadow03]

Where does it say in the Bible that pi = 3? And that bats are birds?

[Pendragon]

Where does it say in the Bible that pi = 3? And that bats are birds?
Leviticus 11

[13] And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
[14] And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
[15] Every raven after his kind;
[16] And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
[17] And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
[18] And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
[19] And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

The word "fowls" hear simply refers to things that fly, but it is easy to see how that would be taken for the word "birds", and the bat is lumped together with birds here. Lots of people thought the bat was a bird because it is the only mammal that truly flies.

God Bless

Pen



You can't support your claims with testable evidence and neither can I. You made some points that I tried to explain as best as I could. It isn't hard for me to believe that animals got to where they needed to be. Pendragon mentioned Pangaea - I have a little trouble with the idea of continental drift since all the continents are connected anyway even now (there's land under those oceans ya know), but I could be wrong.



So I'll just conclude my part of this thing now and let it continue with Pendragon if he wants to. I think I'm out.

Take care, guys.

Aaron, the subject of Pangaea isn't disproving the Bible. As I stated, Genesis says "dry land". It also states that "the waters were gathered together in one place, and the dry land appeared." Taking even a slight glace at a world map you can see where the pieces fit together. The rocks on either side match closely enough to prove they were once connected.

There is a bottom to the ocean, this formed between the cracks as the land drifted apart. Don't you think a catostropic thing like the flood would drastically change the world? And you didn't even address the fact that horses descend from an eohippus, and so the animals may be different from creation. See, this doesn't disprove creation at all, it just makes God the source of all life and not chance.

I have no desire to argue, but I would have people be right. Science doesn't have all the answers. Neither do Christian people, or anyone else who claims to serve God. If we knew everything, we would BE God. But we can learn from each other if we are willing to allow the other man's opinion without rancor.

God Bless

Pendragon

[patrickbeverley]

Just a short note:


Most do, I'll admit, but most scientist used to think the earth was flat
This is not actually true. Since ancient Greek times (ie since records began, more or less), the majority of scientists have always believed the earth to be round.