The Bible is literally true.

[Guest Nanks]

While Adam & Eve were there?? Which of them recorded it, where did they write it and with what?? Or did God create stationary too??

 

Which brings me to another point, from where did Noah garner the knowledge necessary to build a monstrous ship?? Was he also the first engineer??

[Nighthawk 0]

In summary, because the statement I made is true and it had nothing to do with proving otherwise.

 

Look, some would say that using acceleration techniques you can extend carbon dating's range to maybe 100,000 years, not necesarily reliably, but even if I give you that, Paleontologists aren't going to have much use for it, and it's therefore practically irrelevant to the theory of evolution. I didn't bring it up because it's often a flaw of creationists, they bring down carbon dating when it has nothing to do with evolution. But since you guys did, that's why it doesn't.

[Nighthawk 0]

While Adam & Eve were there??  Which of them recorded it, where did they write it and with what??  Or did God create stationary too??

 

Which brings me to another point, from where did Noah garner the knowledge necessary to build a monstrous ship??  Was he also the first engineer??

They were still alive after the Garden of Eden, you know. In fact, if you assume no gaps in the genealogies in Genesis (which you shouldn't), Adam was still alive when Noah's father was alive. He died before Noah was born though.

 

It says that the dimensions of the ship were dictated by God, which really does have to make sense.

 

This is just the developement of civilization. You're arguments are a little shallower now, but that's ok. I know a lot of people have issues with things like this, and they're really not hard to answer.

 

By the way, I meant that you should assume gaps in the genealogies.

[Guest Nanks]

It says that the dimensions of the ship were dictated by God, which really does have to make sense.

 

Actually, no, that doesn't make sense at all. If I tell you to go out and build a 300x50x30 cubit vessel, with rooms & three decks made of gopher wood that is capable of floating and providing carriage for two of every living being of flesh you wouldn't know where to begin. It's preposterous.

 

I recognise my arguments are becoming shallower, but we descended into a fantasy world so long ago that I've found it difficult to keep my arguments in the world of reason.

[Nighthawk 0]

No, it makes sense that the dimensions were dictated to him, as that's the only part which requires divine inspiration. As to how he built it, does it say that he built it alone with no prior knowledge? Maybe he was in the business of building ships. Of course they had engineers by this point, he wouldn't even have to be the first one. Once again, if he paid somebody to do it, they'd do it. All he needed were the dimensions. The preposterous part is how painfully linear your thinking has become.

 

I've answered all of your claims, and you've been unable or unwilling to retort, raising question of the fantastic nature of the proceedings.

[Guest croweater]

I think it's just a general bordom with the subject matter.

You haven't answered me how they survived for periods of up to 800 years.

 

Also, if the boat was built over a period of 100 years, how did the one half not rot while they were building the other?

[Nighthawk 0]

I think you're right. This always happens. Christ was supposed to be the important part, yet 90% of the discussion winds up in Genesis. You see why I said it was important earlier. It's all anybody wants to know.

 

The answer to both questions is actually the same. Clearly the conditions were better suited for life and longevity. Possibly due to an extra atmospheric layer shielding us from the sun's harmful rays.

[Guest croweater]

There would have been a hell of a lot of moisture in the air to make it rain for 40 days and nights. That equals wood rot too me.

[Nighthawk 0]

So they sealed it with pitch.

[Guest Nanks]

Well I'll take the discussion away from Genesis then, the vast majority of the New Testament is fantasy anyway. Accepting The Bible as a history book flies in the face of reason and contends that one book offering no factual evidence is accurate and thousands of resources incorporating piles of scientific evidence is inaccurate. Absurd.

 

How did Mary get pregnant?

Why was Jesus not married in line with Jewish custom??

How did a man who was executed and buried then come to be alive again???

[Nighthawk 0]

For one, many believe Jesus was married.

 

The other two questions are ridiculous. Those things are miracles, if they weren't miracles, it wasn't God, and if it wasn't God, why are you reading it in the first place? Why would I want to demiraculize the scripture? This is the application of the verse "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness".

[Guest Nanks]

Then why doesn't it say he was married in The Bible?? In The Bible he was hanging out with a prositute.

 

I'm aware of the different beliefs on Jesus' true life and his relationship with Magdalene and who she truly was. But your claim is that The Bible is to be taken literally.

[Nighthawk 0]

Does it say he wasn't married?

It doesn't say whether he was because it has no relevance.

[Guest croweater]

The prostitute and Mary are considered seperate people in the bible. I don't know who began the thought they were one and the same (possibly Andrew Lloyd Webber).

[Nighthawk 0]

It was Pope Gregory the Great, actually.

[Guest croweater]

They were in Cahoots.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

You still didn't disprove C14 dating, which does play a part in determining the age of things in the earth. You gave some rough timeframes, and it IS true that it only works accurately between X and Y number of years. Fortunately, there's LOTS of radioactive isotopes in the world, and paleontologists use many. I'm not up to date on the methods or elements used, since that's not my line of work.

 

I went off on a huge tangent about the ark when I was berating Rob Stone once, as he foolishly figured that God set the wheels in motion, then tried to tell me he didn't have his hand in how things moved along, thus placing his creation in a world that obeys the laws of physics and nature. If you just want to say God miracled all these things into place, at least qualify that by saying that doing so involves a TREMENDOUS leap of faith which cannot be proven with any kind of empirical evidence. That's square one of any discussion like this.

 

By the way, I actually agree with you about your points regarding people wanting to disprove god. God IS too easy of an explanation, and one we cannot prove to ourselves in any way shape or form other than personal faith.

[Guest croweater]

They use Uranium isotopes or something like that for really old stuff i think.

 

IDRM is just trying to prove that it is "possible" for everything in the bible to be taken literally. While explainations such as the long levity and dinosaur death are very far fetched, he's still justifying his initial post.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

much like Donkeys and horses can't reproduce.

 

For the record, yes they can.

 

What do you think mules are?

[Guest SP-1]

Since there's a couple more pages of replies since I last checked in and I don't have the time to go back and read them all before I head to the library for a Hermeneutics project or three, I'll tackle this for now:

 

There's zero reason to believe Jesus was married. Four independent historical documents (The Gospels), three of which are considered synoptic (they line up well with one another), mention no wife. Women hung around and followed him (which confuses me as to why some people argue that Jesus promoted abuse), which is no real surprise. But of those four independent documents, there's zero information about a wife.

 

He didn't need to marry. A family wasn't why he was here, not in a physical sense. Did Jesus have a family? You bet. I'm His brother in God's sight. That's why He died, so I could be restored into rightness with God by His sacrifice. Jesus came to start a family, but not with a wife.

Edited September 16, 2004 by SP-1

[Nighthawk 0]

SP is right in a sense. There's also zero reason to believe he wasn't married. There's zero reason to believe he was tall, or that his favorite meal was chicken. It just doesn't make any difference. People who get caught up in the idea that he was or he wasn't are wasting their time.

[Nighthawk 0]

So anyway, I've said this less out of personal conviction than to make some points. First, that someone who says they believe the Bible but compromise on difficult issues is wasting their time. Second, that evolutionists can be more dogmatic and less rational than the religious.

But yeah, there's actually many different isotopes which all function on a different radiometric clock. Carbon, of course, would be ideal for things that were once living, but it is limited to the ages stated. Samarium has about the longest range of the elements used... it's not too common, really.

But you can see what's happened... you've got Nanks in here scoffing at the idea that scientists date geological strata by the fossils in them (which really is what they do... look it up) and saying that carbon dating throws it out the window, when carbon dating had nothing to do with it. Croweater had similar thoughts, though he worded it less foolishly. Yes, there are methods of radiometric dating which can be used on rocks and give long ages, but too many times do you see carbon dating given as a proof of evolution, in the name of reason.

This kind of childlike faith in evolution is on a level with anything you'll find in religion, which is somewhat of the point. You can believe that God performed miracles, or that out of nothing came everything. Yet evolution gets hailed as fact, and rational, when it's really not. Theistic evolution is also foolishness, and I'll explain why if anyone so desires.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

much like Donkeys and horses can't reproduce.

 

For the record, yes they can.

 

What do you think mules are?

Mules cannot reproduce though. If two species cannot produce viable productive offspring, technically, Donkeys and Horses can't really reproduce.

[Red Baron 0]

The Bible is too teach humans moral issues in today's society, what is good and bad. It should be looked as a guide, and a learning tool, on how we act and live our lives in society.

 

No, the Bible is not right on the Adam and Eve.

[Nighthawk 0]

Your opinion is worthless, move along.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

As for who wrote about Adam and Eve, it is accepted by many (including Jews) that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. (The Torah or the Pentateuch) There has been debate on this, though, as German scholars developed the JEDP theory based on the literary style of the writing. The theory states that there were four writers based on the language used for the name of God. There are two flaws in the JEDP theory, though: One being that the Germans did not have any Ancient Near Eastern text to compare their copy of the Bible to. This is a flaw considering that it was the custom of the time to call deities by several different names. Babylonian, Egyptian and several other records back this up. The second flaw being that each book was written with a different purpose and in a different tone. No one would write a memo at the office the same way they write a historical narrative. And no one would write an e-mail like they write a legal document. This plays into the Pentateuch(first five books of the Bible) as some parts are narrative history, and some parts legal document (Deuteronomy in particular). Not to mention the editing that has taken place over the centuries.

As for people living to incredible ages, it is believed by some that man was never made to die. God created Adam, and later Eve, in the hope that they would not sin and live forever. The fall ocurred, and part of man's punishment was mortality. The murder story of Cain and Abel is considered to be the first death in humanity. It is documented in the Bible that God shortened man's life after a group of Angels known as the Nephilim began marrying the "daughter's of men." [And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years. Genesis 6:3 ASV] The children of the Nephilim and the "daughter's of men" are considered by some to be a large reason behind the flood, as they were quite sinful and (if you believe the book of Enoch) taught magic and war to the humans.

There is, without doubt, human influence on the Bible. Seeing that the Old Testament is considered a historical portion of the scriptures, it is inevitable that there were biased views. There is some proof that the Bible's accounts are true though, through archaeological finds including a tablet showing the Israeli king Jehu paying tribute to the (I believe) Babylonians.

It's a necessity to remember that when the Bible was written, people were trying to justify where they were at a certain point. After the inhabitants of Judah were driven out of their lands (Isaiah, Nehemiah, Ezekiel. I think) you see those in Babylon trying to prove they were in God's favor, as well as those who went to Egypt. This is also true in the New Testament. The gospels WERE written after the death and resurrection of Christ, and some of the prophecies in the Old Testament not meant for Christ became an explanation of Christ (22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us. Matthew 1:22 ASV. This verse is considered by scholars to be about Hezekiah, not Christ, and the "Wounded for our transgressions" passage, which is considered to be about the death of one of the 3 writers of Isaiah.)

Knowing this, though, I still believe the Bible. If anything, this helps me to believe it more.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

It is also important to note that the monotheism of the Bible only begins to take shape in Isaiah. Before that God was considered to be only the "god of Israel" as every nation had their respective deities. This was so developed that a king traveling to Babylon actually took a cluster of sod with him so that he could worship YHWH in another land. In Isaiah, though, YHWH declares Himself a Cosmic God, and assumes the role of the "one true God." This was the final ascent of YHWH from Storm God (in the early texts), to the Omnipotent Cosmic God.

 

EDIT: And though I do think the Bible is inspired, I can't honestly say that it is inerrant in every shape and fashion.

[Nighthawk 0]

Incorrect.

[Nighthawk 0]

First, it is tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Whether he did or not bears no influence on the validity of the Bible or anything else. It bears relevance as to the validity of Jewish tradition at best. Another idea is that Moses acted as compiler and editor of Genesis at least, which was written in sections by the respective protagonists. What does it change? Nothing.

Nephilim are commonly interpreted as angels,but it is by no means explicitly stated. It could just as easily have been the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain. I would disagree with placing such a strict interpretation on an ambiguous passage such as this.

I could talk at length about my interpretations of the Biblical doctrines of Hell, demons and Satan, which would have some relevance to this, but it would really be straying from the discussion at hand. That's all my own conjecture, anyway. But it also plays into prophecy.

Picking out a Messianic prophecy falsely so called that has been mistakenly attributed to Jesus doesn't accomplish much, as their were literally thousands of them, layer upon layer which he did fulfill, and none which he didn't. Maybe some are mistakenly attributed, as I feel some passages are mistakenly attributed to the Devil. Choosing one which is directly recorded in a Gospel is clearly wrong, however.

 

If you'd like, tell me why you think there were three authors of Isaiah. I know why you do, and it's wrong, but I think it's an important object lesson.

 

Monotheism is prevalent throughout the Bible. Any other assertion is mere semantics, and it is said of pagan idolatry in 1 Corinthians "they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of the demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and the table of demons"

 

I'm afraid that these are among the worst posts we have seen, as they describe a half hearted hippy religion with one foot in the door of humanism. God says "I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

[Guest SP-1]

Take it easy, IDRM. "Incorrect" isn't an explanation. Address the issues, don't dismiss them if possible.