Archeologists discover materials deposited by water on Mt. Ararat

[Neogaia777]

I am not trying to dissuade you. I am just sharing my perspective.

Again, we can talk about the tortoise and the hare as if they were real historical individuals who raced and the tortoise won. The hare took it all for granted and thought he could be lazy. The tortoise persevered and did his best though it may have taken him a long time. Who do you want to take as your modal? Which one inspires you?

We do this all the time. Remember Bonanza? Ben was the patriarch. A good natured wealthy man with three sons. Adam, Hoss and Little Joe. We can go on and on about them as if they were historical.

Except that most Christians do also accept that the Bible is also a very, very accurate history book, just as much as it is a book meant to teach certain lessons by other people's examples, etc, and that God chooses the real histories of real people to do this by historically.

Of the history that we can trace back, we know that most of these people were real people historically already, etc, and also that it is talking about real nations and real groups of people as well, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Pommer]

It teaches one something may be true even though the whole world might laugh but the key is to hold fast to what God said

Horton Hears a Who makes the same point but I don’t believe in a talking elephant.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Except that most Christians do also accept that the Bible is also a very, very accurate history book, just as much as it is a book meant to teach certain lessons by other people's examples, etc, and that God chooses the real histories of real people to do this by historically.

Even if "most Christians" believed as you say, there is plenty of reason to interpret another way.

 

[Neogaia777]

Even if "most Christians" believed as you say, there is plenty of reason to interpret another way.

Yeah?

Like what?

Lack of faith? Unbelief? Giving up on trying to put all of the pieces of the puzzle together? Not wanting to do your homework while keeping an open mind? Or just "what" exactly, etc?

God Bless.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Lack of faith? Unbelief? Giving up on trying to put all of the pieces of the puzzle together? Not wanting to do your homework while keeping an open mind? Or just "what" exactly, etc?

That is your mistake. You seem to think a non literal approach to Genesis narratives is a lack of faith, a giving up. On the contrary, it is a faith that does not depend on a suspension of common sense. It is a faith that allows a deeper look into context, culture and literary forms. Do you also argue for a young, flat Earth and solid dome sky with water above it? The question is always where to draw the line and it is not a faith question at all. I can believe in a good and loving God even if most of Genesis narrative is myth. Can you?

 

[Neogaia777]

That is your mistake. You seem to think a non literal approach to Genesis narratives is a lack of faith, a giving up. On the contrary, it is a faith that does not depend on a suspension of common sense. It is a faith that allows a deeper look into context, culture and literary forms. Do you also argue for a young, flat Earth and solid dome sky with water above it? The question is always where to draw the line and it is not a faith question at all. I can believe in a good and loving God even if most of Genesis narrative is myth. Can you?

To that last part, I don't have to anymore, because I already know now that Genesis is true, and that God is a loving God, etc.

And as for the rest, no I don't believe in a flat or domed earth, or a young earth, but I believe everything that science has to say about the universe and the earth, etc, and I don't think any of it contradicts the Bible, or the historical accuracy of the Bible in any kind of way at all, but it did take me a while to find all of the correct interpretation, etc, but I still think that it is a lack of faith on your guys part, etc. And I can believe God in the OT is a loving God despite what all of the rest of you believe, or might have to say, or might think about Him, etc, and that takes a lot more faith than all of you just ascribing everything to myth always, which doesn't hardly require any kind of faith at all really, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

To that last part, I don't have to anymore, because I already know now that Genesis is true, and that God is a loving God, etc.

And as for the rest, no I don't believe in a flat or domed earth, or a young earth, but I believe everything that science has to say about the universe and the earth, etc, and I don't think any of it contradicts the Bible, or the historical accuracy of the Bible in any kind of way at all, but it did take me a while to find all of the correct interpretation, etc, but I still think that it is a lack of faith on your guys part, etc. And I can believe God in the OT is a loving God despite what all of the rest of you believe, or might have to say, or might think about Him, etc, and that takes a lot more faith than all of you just ascribing everything to myth always, which doesn't hardly require any kind of faith at all really, etc.

God Bless.

You sound in contradiction to yourself. Some things literal and some things not.
My faith is in God, not an arbitrary line between literal and figurative Bible interpretation.

 

[Neogaia777]

You sound in contradiction to yourself. Some things literal and some things not.
My faith is in God, not an arbitrary line between literal and figurative Bible interpretation.

There is no contradiction.

Perhaps you have not been following along, etc?

God Bless.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

There is no contradiction.

You take the Noah narrative literally but not the six day creation narrative?

 

[Gene2memE]

Except that most Christians do also accept that the Bible is also a very, very accurate history book,

Some Christians do, but it's hard to provide any accurate statements about general Christian beliefs concerning the historicity of the Bible. But, what Christians accept and what is true may not necessarily overlapping.

just as much as it is a book meant to teach certain lessons by other people's examples, etc, and that God chooses the real histories of real people to do this by historically.

Of the history that we can trace back, we know that most of these people were real people historically already, etc, and also that it is talking about real nations and real groups of people as well, etc.

God Bless.

Outside of the Biblical accounts, there's very little evidence for almost any of the individuals mentioned in the Old Testament. Probably the earliest evidence we have is from roughly the middle of the ninth century B.C. Realistically, the Bible is only roughly accurate from about 550-500 BC forwards. Even then, it's HIGHLY motivated in its account.

If you compare the biblical account to, say, the histories of Egypt or the various Sumerian kingdoms, the Bible is found sorely wanting in terms of confirming external sources.

 

[Bobber]

If you compare the biblical account to, say, the histories of Egypt or the various Sumerian kingdoms, the Bible is found sorely wanting in terms of confirming external sources.

I think I'll take the Bible any day as compared to external sources.

 

[Bobber]

Evidence that canyons can be formed in a day....not millions of years, as we see what happened at Mt St Helens. Canyons cut out in a day....similar to what happened in the flood.

genesis flood proof Mt St Helens - Search Videos

www.bing.com

 

[Neogaia777]

You take the Noah narrative literally but not the six day creation narrative?

God's days are very, very long, says so in scripture.

 

[Pommer]

Evidence that canyons can be formed in a day....not millions of years, as we see what happened at Mt St Helens. Canyons cut out in a day....similar to what happened in the flood.

genesis flood proof Mt St Helens - Search Videos

www.bing.com

I musta missed in the flood story the vast levels of sudden volcanism about.

 

[Pommer]

God's days are very, very long, says so in scripture.

How would a “day” be even measured before the sun and earth were in existence?
There are no “days” in Eternity.

 

[Neogaia777]

Realistically, the Bible is only roughly accurate from about 550-500 BC forwards. Even then, it's HIGHLY motivated in its account.

How is it that you think you know this for sure?

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

How would a “day” be even measured before the sun and earth were in existence?
There are no “days” in Eternity.

It is told from the perspective of earth. The sun and moon and stars were "revealed" or uncovered on day 4 so that they could now be seen from the earth's surface.

Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:4 is a very brief summary/history of an entire creation or lifespan of an entire earth from beginning to end, etc, which is always just only a week for God. From Genesis 2:5 on we are on day 6, and are still on day 6 now, etc. Day 7 starts when Jesus returns, and will last until the very, very end of this entire earth's or creations lifespan/age, etc.

None of the 6-7 day creation account found in Genesis 1 through 2:4 contradicts how evolution says it happened, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Gene2memE]

How is it that you think you know this for sure?

Lots of reading of the scholarship of Semitic-speaking peoples and their history. I have a masters in history and while I don't practice in the field, I spent most of the 2000s reading the arguments between the biblical maximalists and the minimalists. I even slogged through Kitchen's ponderous 'On the Reliability of the Old Testament', and several of the nearly as long responses to it.

Personally, I'm most persuaded by Israel Finkelstein's work although I admit to not having really touched the subject seriously for at least 10 years.

 

[Pommer]

It is told from the perspective of earth. The sun and moon and stars were "revealed" or uncovered on day 4 so that they could now be seen from the earth's surface.

“Seen” by whom, exactly?

Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:4 is a very brief summary/history of an entire creation or lifespan of an entire earth from beginning to end, etc, which is always just only a week for God. From Genesis 2:5 on we are on day 6, and are still on day 6 now, etc. Day 7 starts when Jesus returns, and will last until the very, very end of this entire earth's or creations lifespan/age, etc.

That’s interesting how you have things that you’d like to understand all thought out like that.
I’m a Deist, though, and regard Genesis as a nice old-timey set of stories to repeat over the campfire.

None of the 6-7 day creation account found in Genesis 1 through 2:4 contradicts how evolution says it happened, etc.

Again, I’m glad you could reconcile the Bible with science, I do not find the need to attempt that. Science can be wrong.

God Bless.

Have a delightful evening.

 

[Neogaia777]

Lots of reading of the scholarship of Semitic-speaking peoples and their history. I have a masters in history and while I don't practice in the field, I spent most of the 2000s reading the arguments between the biblical maximalists and the minimalists. I even slogged through Kitchen's ponderous 'On the Reliability of the Old Testament', and several of the nearly as long responses to it.

Personally, I'm most persuaded by Israel Finkelstein's work although I admit to not having really touched the subject seriously for at least 10 years.

Good for you.

God Bless.