The Bible

[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/fullpag...53C1A961948260

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.