How can I comprehend creationism as anything other than a lack of faith?

[trophy33]

The Bible does not use the word Trinity, either. The Bible cannot explain with a great deal of understanding regarding the doctrine that our Lord God is a Trinity. Nevertheless, by using multiple different passages of Scriptures from the OT and the NT, there is no doubt for most born-again Christians that the Lord God has been, still is, and always shall be a Trinity for ALL of the eons of eternity.

Its not about the term "inerrancy", its about the concept of the word-for-word inerrancy to be unknown to the Bible. Or the concept of "the original manuscripts being perfect". Its all a religious idea from outside the Bible.

In my opinion, the very best way to attempt to understand Genesis 1-9 is to look at ALL of the different passages of the Bible (not just single verses here and there) that speak about creation, Adam & Eve, as well as the global flood. Then, use that frame of reference and understanding when interpreting all of the relevant scientific evidence which has been discovered and verified.

Bible is not its own encyclopedia. It does not explain all used cultural ideas and genres. However, you can look at Psalm 74, it describes a creation by killing a dragon. It could help to demonstrate that their ideas were quite different from ours, if somebody does not see it in Genesis 1 or 2.

 

[Vambram]

Its not about the term "inerrancy", its about the concept of the word-for-word inerrancy to be unknown to the Bible. Or the concept of "the original manuscripts being perfect". Its all a religious idea from outside the Bible.

If the Lord God did not want the original manuscripts to be inerrant, then I struggle to understand why Jesus said this in Matthew 5:17-19
For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Jesus was stating emphatically that God’s Word is true and trustworthy. God has spoken, His words have been written down accurately, and what God has said will surely come to pass. Fulfillment is inevitable. Even the smallest letter of the Law will be fulfilled. Even the smallest pen stroke of the Prophets will be accomplished. The NLT translates the verse this way: “Until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.”
The doctrine of biblical inerrancy is an extremely important one because the truth does matter. This issue reflects on the character of God and is foundational to our understanding of everything the Bible teaches. The Bible stands or falls as a whole. If a major newspaper were routinely discovered to contain errors, it would be quickly discredited. It would make no difference to say, “All the errors are confined to page three.” For a paper to be reliable in any of its parts, it must be factual throughout. In the same way, if the Bible is inaccurate when it speaks of geology, why should its theology be trusted? It is either a trustworthy document, or it is not.

Bible is not its own encyclopedia. It does not explain all used cultural ideas and genres. However, you can look at Psalm 74, it describes a creation by killing a dragon. It could help to demonstrate that their ideas were quite different from ours, if somebody does not see it in Genesis 1 or 2.

If a person does not use multiple passages of the Bible in order to gain a better understanding of a doctrine, or teachings, then it it too easy to take verses out of context or interpret a passage literally assuming that the figures of speech and symbolism are NOT figures of speech and symbols.

Psalm 74 is widely understood to be talking about when the ancient Israelites were crossing the red sea. This poetical chapter again should be read and understood using methods necessary to factor in the symbols and figures of speech. In Psalm 74:13, the only English translation I found that uses the word "dragon" in that verse is the KJV.

 

[christian-surfer]

Humans design evolutionary algorithms that are applied in many areas, for example in developing autonomous systems.

If you refer to computers, that seems to be something different. Biological life has many mysterious aspects that are not fully understood

You must question it properly. Not with arrogance or with ignorance. And you must have a better reason for questioning it than just your personal religious belief.

That’s like saying if you can’t explain something fully then you have to accept someone else’s explanation or we have to have an explanation for something that we don’t fully understand and then we will proclaim it to be the truth.

It’s almost like saying that science can never say that the answer is “we don’t know”, we will always give you an answer. If we proclaim it to be the absolute truth and then later change our mind then it’s not our problem

 

[trophy33]

If you refer to computers, that seems to be something different. Biological life has many mysterious aspects that are not fully understood

Nothing against that. We "fully" understand almost nothing (if anything at all), in every area there are deeper and deeper layers and a lot of confusion about details - in biology, physics, nutrition, anything I can think of.

However, it does not mean we do not understand the basics and that we have not discovered any repeating patterns in nature.

That’s like saying if you can’t explain something fully then you have to accept someone else’s explanation or we have to have an explanation for something that we don’t fully understand and then we will proclaim it to be the truth.

It’s almost like saying that science can never say that the answer is “we don’t know”, we will always give you an answer. If we proclaim it to be the absolute truth and then later change our mind then it’s not our problem

If you want to criticize the theory of evolution, you need to understand it properly and your criticism must be presented in a working way. You may have a personal religious grudge against it, but its not something that will earn you a respect among evolutionists.

You need solid reasons, scientific reasons - and also to be able to offer a better scientific alternative.

 

[trophy33]

If the Lord God did not want the original manuscripts to be inerrant, then I struggle to understand why Jesus said this in Matthew 5:17-19
For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

But you know that the Law already passed, right? Even during His earthly life, Jesus changed some of it.

Jesus was stating emphatically that God’s Word is true and trustworthy. God has spoken, His words have been written down accurately...

Have you ever compared two gospels to each other? Did what you found match your idea of a supernatural accuracy?

if the Bible is inaccurate when it speaks of geology, why should its theology be trusted? It is either a trustworthy document, or it is not.

Because its purpose is theology, not geology. There is, therefore, no reason to expect it to be supernaturally inspired regarding geology and similar.

If a person does not use multiple passages of the Bible in order to gain a better understanding of a doctrine, or teachings, then it it too easy to take verses out of context or interpret a passage literally assuming that the figures of speech and symbolism are NOT figures of speech and symbols.

Mixing various contexts together can be as wrong as ignoring the context at all. It may seem the context is the same, because the books are put together in one print, however, in reality, the context can differ significantly.

Psalm 74 is widely understood to be talking about when the ancient Israelites were crossing the red sea.

I would not say its widely understood this way. I noticed that such interpretation exists, but it seems to be quite a minor one. It can be intentionally multi-layered and refer to both. However, if it was about the read sea crossing and Leviathan is used to depict Egypt, the fact still remains that its said "the heads of Leviathan", i.e. it refers to the mythical chaos creature, at least symbolically.

 

[Vambram]

But you know that the Law already passed, right? Even during His earthly life, Jesus changed some of it.

The Law did NOT pass away. The Law is still there, but it has been fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ. As you know, Jesus established the New Covenant. Much of the explanation regarding the fulfilling of the Law and the Old Covenant is found within the Book of Romans, and other passages and chapters in the epistles written by the Apostle Paul.

Have you ever compared two gospels to each other? Did what you found match your idea of a supernatural accuracy?

The first three Gospels are called “synoptic” because they “see together with a common view” (the word synoptic literally means “together sight”). Matthew, Mark, and Luke cover many of the same events in Jesus’ life—most of them from Jesus’ ministry in Galilee—in much the same order. Nearly 90 percent of Mark’s content is found in Matthew, and about 50 percent of Mark appears in Luke. All of the parables of Christ are found in the Synoptics (the Gospel of John contains no parables).
There are differences, too. Matthew and Luke are both considerably longer than Mark. Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, Mark for a Roman audience, and Luke for a broader Gentile audience. Matthew quotes extensively from the Old Testament, and his oft use (32 times) of the phrase “the kingdom of heaven” is unique—it’s not found anywhere else in the Bible. Luke places a definite emphasis on Jesus’ acts of compassion toward Gentiles and Samaritans. Much of Luke 10—20 is unique to that Gospel.
The difficulty in explaining the similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels is referred to as the Synoptic Problem in the world of biblical scholarship. In the final analysis, the Synoptic “Problem” is not much of a problem at all—God inspired three Gospel writers to record the events surrounding the same Person during the same part of His life in the same locations, yet with slightly different emphases aimed at different readers.

Because its purpose is theology, not geology. There is, therefore, no reason to expect it to be supernaturally inspired regarding geology and similar.

There is a problem with that point of view, in my opinion. When geologists and evolutionists attempt to use interpretations of geological evidence to teach that the Earth is millions and millions of years old, then that teaching directly contradicts what the various passages of the Bible, from both the Old Testament and New Testament, describe and teach concerning the age of the Earth.

Mixing various contexts together can be as wrong as ignoring the context at all. It may seem the context is the same, because the books are put together in one print, however, in reality, the context can differ significantly.

I believe that you might be misunderstanding what I meant. I am not talking about mixing various contexts together. I am talking about using the historical-grammatical method of interpretating the Bible. In my opinion, the Historical-grammatical method of hermeneutics is the best one to use. The Historical criticism method comes in at a close 2nd place right behind Historical-grammatical in importance and effectiveness for hermeneutical methods of interpretation in my opinion.

I would not say its widely understood this way. I noticed that such interpretation exists, but it seems to be quite a minor one. It can be intentionally multi-layered and refer to both. However, if it was about the read crossing and Leviathan is used to depict Egypt, the fact still remains that its said "the heads of Leviathan", i.e. it refers to the mythical chaos creature, at least symbolically.

That is a good response, my friend. Perhaps we ought to figure out why the English translators used that word for a mythical chaos creature? Honestly, at this time, I cannot give a deep answer for "Leviathan" without doing more research.


May the love, grace, mercy, and blessings of the Lord Jesus Christ be always upon you, your family, and your friends.

 

[trophy33]

The Law did NOT pass away. The Law is still there, but it has been fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ. As you know, Jesus established the New Covenant. Much of the explanation regarding the fulfilling of the Law and the Old Covenant is found within the Book of Romans, and other passages and chapters in the epistles written by the Apostle Paul.

Well, thats your personal opinion/belief, which is not compatible with the Christian teaching. However, its unrelated to the topic of this thread so I will let it be.

The first three Gospels are called “synoptic” because they “see together with a common view” (the word synoptic literally means “together sight”). Matthew, Mark, and Luke cover many of the same events in Jesus’ life—most of them from Jesus’ ministry in Galilee—in much the same order. Nearly 90 percent of Mark’s content is found in Matthew, and about 50 percent of Mark appears in Luke. All of the parables of Christ are found in the Synoptics (the Gospel of John contains no parables).
There are differences, too. Matthew and Luke are both considerably longer than Mark. Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, Mark for a Roman audience, and Luke for a broader Gentile audience. Matthew quotes extensively from the Old Testament, and his oft use (32 times) of the phrase “the kingdom of heaven” is unique—it’s not found anywhere else in the Bible. Luke places a definite emphasis on Jesus’ acts of compassion toward Gentiles and Samaritans. Much of Luke 10—20 is unique to that Gospel.
The difficulty in explaining the similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels is referred to as the Synoptic Problem in the world of biblical scholarship. In the final analysis, the Synoptic “Problem” is not much of a problem at all—God inspired three Gospel writers to record the events surrounding the same Person during the same part of His life in the same locations, yet with slightly different emphases aimed at different readers.

I know what "synoptic" means. And? What is your point? When we read two of them side by side, we can see that the biblical inspiration is nothing similar to a dictation. Human authors, their fallible memory, limited or imperfect historical sources played a significant role in the creation of the writings.

Direct quotes of Jesus differ, places, context or chronology differ, some places even directly contradict each other. Which is understandable for even honest human authors, but not for any supernatural word-for-word dictation.

There is a problem with that point of view, in my opinion. When geologists and evolutionists attempt to use interpretations of geological evidence to teach that the Earth is millions and millions of years old, then that teaching directly contradicts what the various passages of the Bible, from both the Old Testament and New Testament, describe and teach concerning the age of the Earth.

The scientific age of the Earth is not the point of the Bible.

That is a good response, my friend. Perhaps we ought to figure out why the English translators used that word for a mythical chaos creature? Honestly, at this time, I cannot give a deep answer for "Leviathan" without doing more research.

Leviathan is not a translation, its the word in the Hebrew text. Its only transliterated to English alphabet.

 

[Vambram]

Well, thats your personal opinion/belief, which is not compatible with the Christian teaching. However, its unrelated to the topic of this thread so I will let it be.

What you responded to there is absolutely compatible with Christian teaching. Surely you understand the differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant?

 

[Vambram]

@trophy33
We might as well end our debate about inerrancy and so forth. I see that you believe that even the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John stand in apparent direct contradiction with one another. Yes, you probably believe that the 4 Gospels don't contradict each other on a doctrinal level. But, nevertheless, when a person starts going down the road of disbelieving the contexts, and doubting the different direct quotes of Jesus, then that opens a person up to doubting the very foundation of faith in my view.
My friend, you and I ain't gonna agree with one another about inerrancy, and neither one of us will convince the other that the opposing view about inerrancy is correct.
May the love, grace, mercy, and blessings of the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ always be upon you, your family, and your friends.

 

[trophy33]

@trophy33
We might as well end our debate about inerrancy and so forth. I see that you believe that even the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John stand in apparent direct contradiction with one another.

In some places, yes. Its not my "belief", these are known things, like:

Mark 5:21-24 indicates that Jairus approaches Jesus while his daughter is still alive and requests healing.
Matthew 9:18 states that Jairus approaches Jesus after his daughter has already died, asking Him to raise her.

Though not only direct contradictions, but also common different quotations of Jesus basically destroy any dictation-like view of inspiration. The gospel of Luke even explicitly says it was the work of Luke (using historical sources), not some supernatural revelation. If its obvious that Bible has not even preserved the words of Jesus in a perfect form, there is no reason to believe Genesis or genealogies are.

Many Christians holding the extreme view of inspiration never actually tried to compare gospels to each other. Have you?

 

[trophy33]

What you responded to there is absolutely compatible with Christian teaching. Surely you understand the differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant?

This is off-topic here.

 

[Vambram]

Mark 5:21-24 indicates that Jairus approaches Jesus while his daughter is still alive and requests healing.
Matthew 9:18 states that Jairus approaches Jesus after his daughter has already died, asking Him to raise her.

Solution 1: Matthew Didn’t Record the First Statement of Jairus
Matthew may have simply omitted the initial statement of Jairus and instead focused on the second one, which he alone recorded, although it is inferred from Luke 8:50. This theory has merit because Matthew is the only one to also omit that some people came from Jairus’ house and told him that his daughter had just died (Mark 5:35–36; Luke 8:49–50). So chronologically, Jairus told Jesus his daughter was near death (and this was recorded in Mark and Luke), and then when he got word his daughter was dead, he told Jesus the second time and used the phrase that is recorded in Matthew. Luke 8:50 corroborates this by stating that Jesus answered (replied back to) Jairus after he had learned of Jairus’ daughter’s death. It also is worth noting that in Mark and Luke the man begged Jesus to come while his daughter still lived, but in the Matthew account he was “worshipping” Jesus and believed that Jesus could resurrect his daughter. This would further confirm that Matthew omitted or condensed the first discourse with Jairus and focused on the second one after Jairus had been told of his daughter’s death.

Solution 2: Different Point of Emphasis
The translation of the phrase “just died” in Matthew could also be translated “near death.” Arti eteleutēsen is the Greek phrase used in this text, and the Greek word arti is often translated as “henceforth” or “hereafter.” If this theory is correct, then Matthew did not omit any discourse with Jairus; there was just a different point of emphasis. According to commentator Craig Blomberg,

As consistently throughout his Gospel (and esp. with miracle stories), Matthew abbreviates Mark, this time to such an extent that he seems to contradict the parallel accounts (Mark 5:21–43; Luke 8:40–56). Instead of coming to plead with Jesus while his daughter is still alive, Jairus apparently arrives only after her death. Yet to call this a contradiction is anachronistically to impose on an ancient text modern standards of precision in story telling. What is more, in a world without modern medical monitors to establish the precise moment of expiry, there is not nearly so much difference between Matthew’s arti eteleutēsen in v. 18 (which could fairly be translated “just came to the point of death”; cf. Heb 11:22) and eschatos echei in Mark 5:23 (which could also be rendered “is dying”). What is important is not the precise moment of death but Jairus’s astonishing faith.1
Proposed Sequence of Events
Here is how things may have taken place. When Jairus left his house, his daughter was at the point of death; so he may have thought that by the time he was with Jesus, she quite possibly had already died. Indeed, by the time he arrived, she had passed away, as confirmed by the messenger who brought the account of her death before Jesus came to the house.
That Jairus should appeal to Christ on this occasion is very remarkable considering that Jewish leaders were often the people most averse to Jesus. It is also striking that he should fall down and worship Jesus, if not as God, since as yet he might be ignorant of Christ’s deity, yet he behaved with profound respect toward Him, as to a great teacher, known healer, and prophet. That very act of Jairus coming to Jesus when his child was past all hope of recovery, when he had reason to believe she was actually dead, as she indeed now was, affirms that he really believed that if Christ would come to his house and lay his hand upon his daughter, she would certainly be restored to life again.
Perhaps Jairus, being intimately familiar with the Torah, had in mind Elijah and Elisha, whom God had given the power of being able to resurrect the dead (1 Kings 17:17–24; 2 Kings 4:18–37), in both instances using physical contact with the recently deceased. Perhaps he had heard of Christ’s healing powers and dared hope they would be sufficient to the task. Luke 8:43–48 records that while Jairus was walking with Him, Jesus healed a woman with a blood issue. Jairus therefore was an eyewitness to the power of Christ even before they reached his house.

No Contradiction, But Different Focal Points
In any event, the passages do not contradict each other, but just show the different focus each Gospel writer emphasized. Whether it was through just recording part of the event, or perhaps the phrases “even now dead” or “just died” meaning “imminently near death,” all three Gospel accounts bring out a slightly different emphasis. Their main point is unmistakable: Jesus had power to raise the dead as authentication of His deity.

Was Jairus’ Daughter Dead or Near Death When He Came to See Jesus

This is a historical narrative passage in all three accounts. Yet there may be a translational issue at the heart of this apparent contradiction.

answersingenesis.org

 

[trophy33]

Solution 1: Matthew Didn’t Record the First Statement of Jairus
Matthew may have simply omitted the initial statement of Jairus and instead focused on the second one, which he alone recorded, although it is inferred from Luke 8:50. This theory has merit because Matthew is the only one to also omit that some people came from Jairus’ house and told him that his daughter had just died (Mark 5:35–36; Luke 8:49–50). So chronologically, Jairus told Jesus his daughter was near death (and this was recorded in Mark and Luke), and then when he got word his daughter was dead, he told Jesus the second time and used the phrase that is recorded in Matthew. Luke 8:50 corroborates this by stating that Jesus answered (replied back to) Jairus after he had learned of Jairus’ daughter’s death. It also is worth noting that in Mark and Luke the man begged Jesus to come while his daughter still lived, but in the Matthew account he was “worshipping” Jesus and believed that Jesus could resurrect his daughter. This would further confirm that Matthew omitted or condensed the first discourse with Jairus and focused on the second one after Jairus had been told of his daughter’s death.

Solution 2: Different Point of Emphasis
The translation of the phrase “just died” in Matthew could also be translated “near death.” Arti eteleutēsen is the Greek phrase used in this text, and the Greek word arti is often translated as “henceforth” or “hereafter.” If this theory is correct, then Matthew did not omit any discourse with Jairus; there was just a different point of emphasis. According to commentator Craig Blomberg,

As consistently throughout his Gospel (and esp. with miracle stories), Matthew abbreviates Mark, this time to such an extent that he seems to contradict the parallel accounts (Mark 5:21–43; Luke 8:40–56). Instead of coming to plead with Jesus while his daughter is still alive, Jairus apparently arrives only after her death. Yet to call this a contradiction is anachronistically to impose on an ancient text modern standards of precision in story telling. What is more, in a world without modern medical monitors to establish the precise moment of expiry, there is not nearly so much difference between Matthew’s arti eteleutēsen in v. 18 (which could fairly be translated “just came to the point of death”; cf. Heb 11:22) and eschatos echei in Mark 5:23 (which could also be rendered “is dying”). What is important is not the precise moment of death but Jairus’s astonishing faith.1
Proposed Sequence of Events
Here is how things may have taken place. When Jairus left his house, his daughter was at the point of death; so he may have thought that by the time he was with Jesus, she quite possibly had already died. Indeed, by the time he arrived, she had passed away, as confirmed by the messenger who brought the account of her death before Jesus came to the house.
That Jairus should appeal to Christ on this occasion is very remarkable considering that Jewish leaders were often the people most averse to Jesus. It is also striking that he should fall down and worship Jesus, if not as God, since as yet he might be ignorant of Christ’s deity, yet he behaved with profound respect toward Him, as to a great teacher, known healer, and prophet. That very act of Jairus coming to Jesus when his child was past all hope of recovery, when he had reason to believe she was actually dead, as she indeed now was, affirms that he really believed that if Christ would come to his house and lay his hand upon his daughter, she would certainly be restored to life again.
Perhaps Jairus, being intimately familiar with the Torah, had in mind Elijah and Elisha, whom God had given the power of being able to resurrect the dead (1 Kings 17:17–24; 2 Kings 4:18–37), in both instances using physical contact with the recently deceased. Perhaps he had heard of Christ’s healing powers and dared hope they would be sufficient to the task. Luke 8:43–48 records that while Jairus was walking with Him, Jesus healed a woman with a blood issue. Jairus therefore was an eyewitness to the power of Christ even before they reached his house.

No Contradiction, But Different Focal Points
In any event, the passages do not contradict each other, but just show the different focus each Gospel writer emphasized. Whether it was through just recording part of the event, or perhaps the phrases “even now dead” or “just died” meaning “imminently near death,” all three Gospel accounts bring out a slightly different emphasis. Their main point is unmistakable: Jesus had power to raise the dead as authentication of His deity.

Was Jairus’ Daughter Dead or Near Death When He Came to See Jesus

This is a historical narrative passage in all three accounts. Yet there may be a translational issue at the heart of this apparent contradiction.

answersingenesis.org

In the first case Jairus said "my daughter just died", in the other case Jairus said "my daughter is dying". There is no indication these were different events, both are placed into the first meeting between Jairus and Jesus, before the events with the woman who have been suffering from hemorrhage for 12 years.

Saying "Matthew omitted or condensed the first discourse" is exactly why you cannot believe for example Genesis to be word-for-word precise. It can omit, it can condense genealogies, it can change order of events etc.
Saying "Their main point is unmistakable: Jesus had power to raise the dead as authentication of His deity." is fine with me - main theological points are preserved in Scriptures. That is what I am saying. Your source supports mine view, but not yours.

Have you ever tried to read two synoptic gospels side by side? You would see so many differences that I doubt you could continue believing a dictation-like inspiration.

Another example:

When Jesus came into Peter’s home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. 15 He touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she got up and waited on Him. (Mt 8:14)
And He came to her and raised her up, taking her by the hand, and the fever left her, and she waited on them. (Mk 1:31)
And standing over her, He rebuked the fever, and it left her; and she immediately got up and waited on them. (Lk 4:39)

Another example:

Healing the paralytic:

Jesus said to the paralytic, “Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven.” (Mt 9:2)
Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” (Mk 2:5)
Seeing their faith, He said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven you.” (Lk 5:20)

Another example, still the same place:

And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, “Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? (Mt 9:4)
Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? (Mk 2:8)

Another example:

And Jesus said to them, “The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? (Mt 9:15)
And Jesus said to them, “While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? (Mk 2:19)
And Jesus said to them, “You cannot make the attendants of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you? (Lk 5:34)

These are examples I have randomly found just now, by simply reading it in Bible. Its that easy and common. Just try it, you do not need any theological education, knowledge of Greek or what not. Just try reading it side by side and you will see for yourself that your view does not work.

 

[Vambram]

So, in other words. You don't believe the Bible because copies and translations, which are NOT INSPIRED and definitely NOT INERRANT show some small contradictions? Is that what you are trying to suggest?

 

[trophy33]

So, in other words. You don't believe the Bible because copies and translations, which are NOT INSPIRED and definitely NOT INERRANT show some small contradictions? Is that what you are trying to suggest?

No, I am "suggesting" (well, actually proving without any doubt) that we cannot work with Scriptures as being word-for-word dictated.

Even the words of Christ are preserved differently in different gospels, therefore less important things like for example the two Genesis creation stories or genealogies or their ages are obviously not something we must take "word-for-word" and fight against the scientific worldview because of them.

The doctrine of "perfect originals, but corrupted copies" is unprovable, without any evidence and of no practical use. We can read the beginning of the gospel of Luke to check how he wrote his gospel - no mentioning of anything that reminds your view.

 

[Vambram]

You cannot work with the translations of the copies of the manuscripts as being word for word dictated. Despite your ideas about the original manuscripts of the original authors being imperfect, the real truth is that the Lord God Who is perfect would not have allowed imperfections being written by the original human writers of the original manuscripts. Philosophically, what you are suggesting goes contrary to the theological truth that God Himself is perfect and without error. Therefore, His Word in the original manuscripts would have also been perfect and inerrant.

 

[The Barbarian]

How can this be understood except as a lack of faith? And that's my question. How can I comprehend creationism as anything other than a lack of faith?

I don't agree at all with YE creationism. But I would hesitate to accuse most of them of a lack of faith. IMO, they are in error, not faithless.

 

[The Barbarian]

You cannot work with the translations of the copies of the manuscripts as being word for word dictated. Despite your ideas about the original manuscripts of the original authors being imperfect, the real truth is that the Lord God Who is perfect would not have allowed imperfections being written by the original human writers of the original manuscripts. Philosophically, what you are suggesting goes contrary to the theological truth that God Himself is perfect and without error. Therefore, His Word in the original manuscripts would have also been perfect and inerrant.

Do you think that a mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds? It's not. Does that mean that God was wrong? Of course not. To argue about the size of seeds is to miss the entire point of His sermon.

His word is inerrant in the message. It doesn't mean that bats are really birds, or that mustard seeds are the smallest of seeds. And it certainly does not mean that God is wrong.

 

[Vambram]

Do you think that a mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds? It's not. Does that mean that God was wrong? Of course not. To argue about the size of seeds is to miss the entire point of His sermon.

His word is inerrant in the message. It doesn't mean that bats are really birds, or that mustard seeds are the smallest of seeds. And it certainly does not mean that God is wrong.

The mustard seed was used as a metaphor for a comparison. Also, I do not know whether or not the people whom Jesus Christ addressed there at that time knew whether or not that there was a seed smaller than a mustard seed. However, I do agree that to argue about the size of seeds is indeed missing the point of that sermon.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Over the heads of the angels there was something like a dome, shining like crystal, spread out above their heads.
Ezekiel 1:22

Ezekiel the Priest, who was a prophet, that saw visions of God.
He was captive in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar;
Gods spirit was with him. Ezekiel did not copy, or was influenced by
[pagan] ancient near east mythological traditions of creation myths.

Eze 1:4-18 He sees a whirlwind came out of the north.
Ezekiel starts to describe what was flying towards him.
Eze 1:19-21 the living creatures landed on the earth off and on.

Ezekiel’s Vision of some most impressive—living creatures lit up
like fire, and lightning coming out of the fire. Ezekiel was not talking
about the firmament/dome,sky/area above the earth in gen., but
the firmament/area on or radating from these living creatures.

Ezekiel 1:22 starts to discribes what the upper part looked like.

KJV Eze 1:22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads
of the living creature "was" as the colour of the [terrible] crystal,
stretched forth over their heads above.

terrible H3372
יָרֵא
yârê'
yaw-ray'
A primitive root; to fear; morally to revere; causatively to frighten:
- affright, be (make) afraid, dread (-ful), (put in) fear (-ful, -fully, -ing).
(be had in) reverence (-end), X see, terrible (act, -ness, thing).
Total KJV occurrences: 334

crystal H7140
קֹרַח קֶרַח
qerach qôrach
keh'-rakh, ko'-rakh
From H7139; ice (as if bald, that is, smooth); hence, hail;
by resemblance, rock crystal: - crystal, frost, ice.
Total KJV occurrences: 7

If this was discribing the color of the sky, why not just say blue?
This is Not the sky pictured here. The color blue in Hebrew is "KHHvl".

Ever see pictures of a Halo around Jesus or Mary, or other saints?
How about Radiating Halo: Less defined than the circular halo
and looks like an orb around the head of the holy figure.

And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne,
in appearance like sapphire stone; and seated above the likeness of a
throne was something that seemed like a human form.
Ezekiel 1:26

"And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads,
when they stood and had let down their wings.

Where they Standing in Heaven? No standing on earth where Ezekiel was.
Stopped with their wings down, he starts describing God and his throne/chair.

Again this verse says the dome was over their heads, not over the earth.
Revelation 4:1-11 shows what The Throne [Room] in Heaven looks like.

And this vaulted dome has an appearance of pavement
of sapphire stone, as noted in the above passages.

Reread the verse again please.
The Throne that God was seated on appeared like sapphire stone.
The Throne/chair was made of sapphire stone, or looked like the color of.
The word pavement is not in verse, [sapphire stone] is singular form.

The color of the dome/firmament/area over/on the living creature's heads
was [terrible] to fear.; morally to revere; causatively to frighten:

Odd color to be describing the sky/heaven.

Age old question -Why does the Earth's atmosphere look blue?

Rayleigh scattering | Molecules, Light, Wavelength | Britannica

Rayleigh scattering, dispersion of electromagnetic radiation by particles that have a radius less than approximately 110 the wavelength of the radiation. The process has been named in honour of Lord Rayleigh, who in 1871 published a paper describing this phenomenon. The angle through which sunlight

www.britannica.com

The Earth's blue colored atmosphere/Firmament is water in one of many
properties. In outer space, above the first firmament, the second firmament
looks black even in sunlight. The universe has lots of water in it. God used
a blank 3d Black canvas and painted bright 3d objects for our viewing.

And this Vault, rests upon the earth. Atop pillars:

So pilers hold up the earth, that holds up the air, that holds up
the universe, that then holds up Gods Throne rooms dwelling place.
What holds up the Pillers under earth? How many pilers needed?

Hebrew word for pillars ydwmu is used for both the heavens and the earth.
Job 26:11 "The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof."

Pillars and foundations are two different things.
You need a foundation to put pillars on.
What foundation are the pillars sitting on?
What is the foundation sitting on?
The foundation of the earth the center of the universe?

and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like
a pavement of sapphire stone, [like] the very heaven [for clearness].
Exodus 24:10

Here again you confuse where the event takes place, and take-out of
contest the firmament/area and try to apply it to Genesis 1 firmament.
Where was God, in Heaven? No He was on Mount Sinai on earth.

12 Now the Lord said to Moses, “Come up to Me on the mountain
and remain there, and I will give you the stone tablets.
Exo 34:5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him
there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. Acts 7:38

"like the very heaven for [clearness] H2892
טֹהַר
ṭôhar
to'-har
From H2891; literally brightness; ceremonially purification:
- clearness, glory, purifying.
Total KJV occurrences: 4

So the air/firmament around earth is like the very heaven for clearness?
Mount Sinai was dirty, God used purified sapphire stones to stand on.
Moses covered his face with a veil when speaking to the people, to avoid
alarming them with its radiance after being in God's presence.

[Nothing] about ancient near east cosmo/mythological in verses above.
The firmament was upon the heads of the living creatures, not over earth.

The first chapter is talking about a vision of the glory of God! not creation