Polarization and beliefs on Creation

[damoncasale]

Anyway, I fear that this is getting away from Damon's original question about his model for origins, and moving toward general ways of interpretation, which you and I have discussed previously, and which cover the same views expressed by many people on these threads in either direction.

I'm also waiting to see if KW or Mark Kennedy answer my posts. I mean, I can understand and respect their positions, and I'm *hoping* for reciprocity. Waiting to see if that happens.

Damon

 

[KWCrazy]

Sigh. It sounds again like a creationist having the arrogance to think that their personally favored interpretation is the only one possible.

It seems to be the only one supported by the Scriptures and not subject to the random interpretations of men who put more faith in the creation than the Creator. It also seems to be supported by Christ, who routinely referred to the Scriptures as absolute historic fact. I'm not posting my interpretations of anything. I'm posting what the Bible clearly states.

Exodus also has God telling us how he flew the Jews out of Egypt "on eagles wings".

Exodus 19:
3 Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 4 ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you[a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”

That verse is clearly using a colorful expression to make a point; that the Israelites were lifted up out of bondage and brought to a place of safety. It's clearly a very different usage of language than "The evening and the morning were the third day." Anyone can see this. Why do you obfuscate the obvious clear language and attempt to deliberately misinterpret the Scriptures? That's what we get from the non-believers. The people knew there weren't giant birds that carried them away, but that the spirit of the Lord protected them. The Bible uses a lot of analogies and metaphors, but when it speaks of creation it uses language that cannot possibly be interpreted any other way without changing the language itself. Moreover, Jesus affirmed that the flood was an actual event, and He was witness to it.

 

[KWCrazy]

They even left behind pottery, dated to roughly 7500 BCE.

Dated by whom?

If I set the bible as THE standard and forced it to be literal, then I would be forced to arrive at the same conclusion.

Jesus believed that the Scriptures were absolutely historically correct. Was He wrong? If Jesus believed in Noah, then Noah was a real person.

But what I've done instead is to set the bible and science as equal,

Why? Should a God who performed 333 miracles in the Scriptures be held to the same laws as the world He created? Science would hold that it is impossible for the son of God to become human; be crucified and ride from the dead on the third day. Do you believe science?

and where they seem to differ, reserved judgment until I could come up with a possible resolution.

The only way you can resolve the difference between truth and falsehood is to create a lesser falsehood; which of course is faithful to neither. Jesus believed that the Scriptures were historically accurate. As I have faith in Him, I defer to His knowledge over and above the failed interpretations of man. Where to you put your faith? What does the Holy Spirit tell you when you pray about it?

I think we have very different approaches.

I agree. Given the choice I'd rather explain to you why I take believe the Scriptures to be true than to explain to God why I did not.

 

[damoncasale]

Dated by whom?

Have you ever studied scientific dating techniques? And I mean, really studied them, not just looked at what's on Answers in Genesis, because those articles have holes in their logic that you won't necessarily know about or see unless you go study the techniques for yourself.

I'm asking because, when I started trying to piece together whether Creation was literal or figurative, I knew that I needed to understand how reliable (or unreliable) scientific dating methods were. So I got a book called "Chronometric Dating in Archaeology" through interlibrary loan and actually looked at how the various techniques worked, whether they were cross-checked with anything else (they were), and how scientists themselves calculated the epsilon value (error range) for their dates. I compared that with what's on Answers in Genesis and found that practically every one of the reasons Answers in Genesis gave for dismissing the validity of, say, carbon dating, is answered in this book. And the book gave multiple *other* dating techniques that can be used to cross-check carbon dates.

Basically, dates like 7500 BCE could be off by a certain percentage, but not off by an order of magnitude (say, only half).

Jesus believed that the Scriptures were absolutely historically correct. Was He wrong? If Jesus believed in Noah, then Noah was a real person.

I believe Noah was a real person, too, but I found conflicting evidence for a global flood, so I'm reserving judgment on that for the time being.

Why? Should a God who performed 333 miracles in the Scriptures be held to the same laws as the world He created? Science would hold that it is impossible for the son of God to become human; be crucified and ride from the dead on the third day. Do you believe science?

There's one particular scholar who's studied the Shroud of Turin for more than ten years now. He believes it's the burial cloth of Jesus.

And he happens to be an orthodox Jew. How's that for unbiased analysis.

In any case, you're basically making the same kinds of arguments that my mother made, but those don't resolve my doubts. If you really want to HELP resolve my doubts, do that, but right now it sounds like you're lecturing me on the way I should believe.

Right now my issue is that, when I attempt to look at the facts in even-handed fashion, I come up with more time that humans were around than can be explained by having God literally create the *first* man and woman. If you prefer not to look at things in even-handed fashion, then unfortunately I don't think you'll be able to help me resolve my doubts in a literal Creation.

The only way you can resolve the difference between truth and falsehood is to create a lesser falsehood; which of course is faithful to neither. Jesus believed that the Scriptures were historically accurate. As I have faith in Him, I defer to His knowledge over and above the failed interpretations of man. Where to you put your faith? What does the Holy Spirit tell you when you pray about it?

And if I were to say that when I prayed, I got an answer you wouldn't accept, would you believe me?

You can't use faith to prove faith. That's just circular reasoning. That might be evidence enough for *me*, but not necessarily for others.

Besides, why should I not attempt to "prove all things" (literally, put them to the test) according to 1 Thess. 5:21? Does attempting to prove things make me any less faithful?

Damon

 

[KWCrazy]

Have you ever studied scientific dating techniques?

Yep.

And I mean, really studied them, not just looked at what's on Answers in Genesis, because those articles have holes in their logic that you won't necessarily know about or see unless you go study the techniques for yourself.

The study of the past always has holes because there are some things that can't be known; only assumed. As for the problems with the dating techniques, one points out a problem, the other points out a problem with the accusation. Who's right? Maybe neither. Maybe both to some extent. Ultimately, the only source you can trust to be right every time is the Lord.

I believe Noah was a real person, too, but I found conflicting evidence for a global flood, so I'm reserving judgment on that for the time being.

There is nothing conflicting in the Scriptures regarding a global flood. It is scientifically possible? No, but neither are the other 332 miracles.

There's one particular scholar who's studied the Shroud of Turin for more than ten years now. He believes it's the burial cloth of Jesus.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It will certainly never convince the unbeliever that the resurrection happened, but it would make sense that such a garment would have been preserved by the followers of Jesus.

In any case, you're basically making the same kinds of arguments that my mother made, but those don't resolve my doubts.

I'm not asking you to believe her or me. I'm asking you to believe Jesus.

If you really want to HELP resolve my doubts, do that, but right now it sounds like you're lecturing me on the way I should believe.

If you could show some Scriptural justification for what you believe, it would sound less like rejection of the Word.

Right now my issue is that, when I attempt to look at the facts in even-handed fashion, I come up with more time that humans were around than can be explained by having God literally create the *first* man and woman.

Personally, I choose to put the word of God over the theories of man, but that's just me.

And if I were to say that when I prayed, I got an answer you wouldn't accept, would you believe me?

If God revealed to you that His word was mythology I would be interested to hear it, but I can't promise I'd believe it. Having personally experienced things that science can never explain, I tend to not put much faith in the claims of naturalists.

Does attempting to prove things make me any less faithful?

Damon

Only you can answer that.

 

[juvenissun]

Brilliantly put! Thank you!

My hypothesis on how to harmonize science and the Genesis might not be the right one, but what I'm hoping is that regardless, those who disagree aren't doing so out of fear. Fear that, by not believing in a completely literal Creation account, they are somehow rejecting God, God's omnipotence, God's ability to do what He says He is going to do, etc.

After having gone through about ten years of massive w t f moments, I've come to the conclusion that there's plenty I don't understand about God and how He works. I hope that, where I or any God-fearing person might see differences between what science teaches and what the bible teaches, we might be able to patiently reserve judgment until such time as we DO understand something.

Damon

We do not disagree on what we do not understand.

 

[damoncasale]

Yep.

Okay, well, that wasn't very helpful. Let me try another tact. What specific resources have you looked at, scientifically speaking? What was it that convinced you that, basically, you can throw away science when it disagrees with a literal interpretation of the bible?

I'm curious as to your journey.

The study of the past always has holes because there are some things that can't be known; only assumed. As for the problems with the dating techniques, one points out a problem, the other points out a problem with the accusation. Who's right? Maybe neither. Maybe both to some extent. Ultimately, the only source you can trust to be right every time is the Lord.

When the Septuagint was translated towards the end of the 2nd century BC (if I'm recalling correctly), the translators were living in Alexandria, Egypt. Likely because they saw a conflict between the secular history they knew of in Egypt and the sacred history found in the bible, they added a hundred years to the age of each patriarch when his firstborn was born, to stretch out the timeline between then and the Flood -- since they could see that there hadn't been a great flood within the recorded history of Egypt.

If people in that age -- ones who were responsible for translating the bible, even! -- had their doubts as to the absolute, literal veracity of the biblical account, then should I be faulted for having my own doubts, when I attempt to weigh history (and archaeology) alongside the bible?

There is nothing conflicting in the Scriptures regarding a global flood. It is scientifically possible? No, but neither are the other 332 miracles.

I'm not saying conflicting in the bible, but I find conflicting evidence in excavations in Mesopotamia. There should be a consistent flood layer, according to what scientists have learned about how flooding works, but there's not. There are different layers in different places, indicating local floods that happened at different times.

Not sure what to do with that, so I'm putting it on a shelf for now.

If God revealed to you that His word was mythology I would be interested to hear it, but I can't promise I'd believe it. Having personally experienced things that science can never explain, I tend to not put much faith in the claims of naturalists.

Personally, the kind of answers I usually get are "this isn't for you to figure out". Got that one when I asked about the timeline of Daniel and the 70 weeks. Someone else pointed me in the right direction on that, although I still have questions.

As far as Creation itself, I've asked before and although the answers have been vague, they've tended to include a return question to the effect of, do you think you've done due diligence in studying this out. In other words, if I think I've put enough effort into coming to a reasonable conclusion (e.g., "proving all things,") then that's all God is looking for, at least as far as I've been told.

Again, I don't think that kind of answer will satisfy you, though.

Damon

 

[Calminian]

Just thought I would jump in here. Genesis was authored by Moses and other Levites. There is no indication of any such tablets and the Pentateuch was probably finished before they ever crossed Jordon.

Let me just jump in too. But Mark, the entire book of Genesis was history to Moses. He wasn't alive during any of it. So how did he get the account?

There seems to be only 2 possible answers. Either he receive it from passed down records, or he received the entire narrative directly from God via direct dictation. The problem with the latter is this would be totally unique to the normal method of biblical inspiration. Henry Morris pointed out.

"Visions and revelations of the Lord" normally have to do with prophetic revelations of the future (as in Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, etc.). The direct dictation method of inspiration was used mainly for promulgation of specific laws and ordinances (as in the Ten Commandments, the Book of Leviticus, etc.). The Book of Genesis, however, is entirely in the form of narrative records of historical events. Biblical parallels to Genesis are found in such books as Kings, Chronicles, Acts, and so forth. In all of these, the writer either collected previous documents and edited them (e.g., I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles), or else recorded the events which he had either seen himself or had ascertained from others who were witnesses (e.g., Luke, Acts).​

Also, what do you do with statements like Genesis 5:1, "this is the book of the account of Adam."? The word for book here is sepher—book or written account. Why would Moses cite a book, if he did not use original source material?

We know now that the practice of writing is much older than both Moses and Abraham. This is according to secular archeologists. Why would be be unsettled about the Israelites participating in this, and recording their history on tablets and other mediums, knowing that it was extant in their time and region? Why would be be uncomfortable with Moses using source material, but not the author of Kings and Chronicles? Just ask'n.

 

[Calminian]

...First of all, I'm not trying to make Genesis "wrong." It may not be completely literal, but ....

It seems, the only reason you don't take it literal, is because you've chosen to trust Egyptian chronologies over the Bible. Why would you do this? The Biblical record is impeccable compared to the mess of Egyptian chronology. And that's according to the experts that study it!

Here's a good article on it.

Fall of the Sothic theory: Egyptian chronology revisited

And here's a good article on reconciling Egyptian and Biblical chronology.

Egyptian history and the biblical record: a perfect match?

Christ never vouched for the accuracy of Egyptian record keeping, but he did vouch for Moses. Why not trust Christ in this matter?

And damoncasale, I know you think people are attacking you, but all myself and others are doing is disagreeing with you. Nobody doubts one can be saved and be a christian, even if they are wrong on the book of Genesis. But God gave us the book of Genesis to bless us. To get it wrong is to miss a blessing, and to show the next generation that we don't trust the whole Bible.

 

[damoncasale]

It seems, the only reason you don't take it literal, is because you've chosen to trust Egyptian chronologies over the Bible. Why would you do this? The Biblical record is impeccable compared to the mess of Egyptian chronology. And that's according to the experts that study it!

Egyptian chronology is actually rather solid, but can be improved on.

Have you heard of either David Rohl or Gary Greenberg?

I mentioned both earlier in this thread. Gary Greenberg wrote articles showing that Manetho's dynastic lists are actually much more reliable than scholars have thought, but the people who copied him (Josephus, Africanus, etc.) made copyist mistakes because they didn't understand what they were copying.

See ggreenberg dot tripod dot com slash ancientne slash manetho1 dot html. Also manetho2 and manetho3.

David Rohl, who is a credentialed scholar, wrote a book called Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest. He showed exactly why the 21st and 22nd dynasties of Egypt overlap (meaning, the conventional chronology is about 150 years too long due to that, and there are other issues which shorten it by maybe 350 years but not much more than that), instead of being consecutive.

But neither of those completely throw out the Egyptian chronology. Is it a mess? A little bit, but not to the extent that those articles claim. Egyptian chronology doesn't stand or fall on Sothic theory.

And here's a good article on reconciling Egyptian and Biblical chronology.

Heh, and it mentions David Rohl.

Anyway, A Test of Time is the UK version of Pharaohs and Kings. And David Rohl also wrote a book called Legend: The Genesis of Civilization, where he gives his own theory on where he thinks the Garden of Eden was. And if that's not enough clue that he doesn't believe in 6,000 years of human history, he wrote the foreword to a book called Gateway to Atlantis by Andrew Collins, which collates various legends concerning Atlantis, shows that they were realistic, but that Atlantis would have been located in the Caribbean, not in the mid-Atlantic, and would've existed roughly 10,000 years ago.

Christ never vouched for the accuracy of Egyptian record keeping, but he did vouch for Moses. Why not trust Christ in this matter?

And damoncasale, I know you think people are attacking you, but all myself and others are doing is disagreeing with you. Nobody doubts one can be saved and be a christian, even if they are wrong on the book of Genesis. But God gave us the book of Genesis to bless us. To get it wrong is to miss a blessing, and to show the next generation that we don't trust the whole Bible.

First of all, I don't think people are attacking me, but I'm using psychology. It's easier to sit back and lecture someone that you have no emotional investment in understanding, helping, etc. I know, I used to do the exact same thing in college, in forum posts on soc.religion.christian.bible-study. So that's why, when I write, I write in terms of *my* beliefs, *my* journey, etc., and how my journey might differ from others -- and hence why I might have arrived at different conclusions than others have.

Secondly, it's not as simple as "trusting Christ in this matter." I don't know if you read my most recent post, but another poster asked me if I'd ever prayed and asked God about whether Creation was literal. I responded with exactly the kind of answer I *did* get, but suggested that it wasn't the kind of definitive answer that he might accept. So if I have my doubts because I see a disconnect between what I've researched out scientifically and what I read in the bible, understand that I've put a LOT of effort into researching these things out.

If I may ask, have you ever looked beyond articles on sites like creation.com to research these things out for yourself? I understand that it might not be important to you to do so. (It only was for me because I grew up with two parents with major religious differences, so I had lots of questions.) I'm just curious about *your* journey, and how you came to the conclusions you did.

Damon

 

[Calminian]

...If I may ask, have you ever looked beyond articles on sites like creation.com to research these things out for yourself? I understand that it might not be important to you to do so. (It only was for me because I grew up with two parents with major religious differences, so I had lots of questions.) I'm just curious about *your* journey, and how you came to the conclusions you did.

Damon

Yes, I'm interested in secular history also, and have quite a few books in my personal library. But I read all history through the filter of the perfect history in the Bible. The scriptures are the only source that God inspired and superintended.

What I find is an uncanny resemblance in secular history of the biblical stories. The egyptian creation story in particular bore some striking resemblances. Flood legends are an obvious parallel as well found in all cultures.

As for my upbringing, I was raised in a liberal Methodist church environment, with my parents being very unreligious. I read the Bible for myself, and became a believer at age 25.

 

[KWCrazy]

What was it that convinced you that, basically, you can throw away science when it disagrees with a literal interpretation of the bible?

What was it that convinced you that, basically, you can throw the Bible when it disagrees with unscriptural stories of molecules to man? At some point you have to decide whether you serve a supernatural God or simply live in a universe that is governed exclusively by natural law. Perhaps at an early age actually seeing supernatural entities that science denies exist convinced me that there is more to this existence than the physical world. Science can make a compelling case for some of their theories, but when they say that all the matter in the universe once occupied a space smaller than an atom I just have to laugh. Compressing trillions of trillions of tons of matter into something even the size of our earth would make it so incredibly dense that nothing short of the hand of God could disperse it. Contrast this with the knowledge that matter and energy are convertible; that God's energy could create matter without even violation natural law. With science if you go back far enough you run into the impossible. With God, all things are possible.

When the Septuagint was translated towards the end of the 2nd century BC (if I'm recalling correctly), the translators were living in Alexandria, Egypt. Likely because they saw a conflict between the secular history they knew of in Egypt and the sacred history found in the bible, they added a hundred years to the age of each patriarch when his firstborn was born, to stretch out the timeline between then and the Flood -- since they could see that there hadn't been a great flood within the recorded history of Egypt.

The Apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint for historical and religious purposes, but are not recognized by Protestant Christians or Orthodox Jews as canonical (inspired by God). Most reformed teachers will point out that the New Testament writers never quoted from the Apocryphal books, and that the Apocrypha was never considered part of the canonical Jewish scripture.
source

Jesus never quoted from the Apocryphal books. He quoted from the canonical Scriptures which were written in Hebrew. Jesus had no problem discussing the great flood and Noah as real events.

There should be a consistent flood layer, according to what scientists have learned about how flooding works, but there's not. There are different layers in different places, indicating local floods that happened at different times.

How much study do you think they've done with floods over 10,000 feet deep, which would be required to cover even the lower mountains in the area? That kind of pressure can turn sediment into rock in a very short time span.

 

[Papias]

originally Posted by Papias

Sigh. It sounds again like a creationist having the arrogance to think that their personally favored interpretation is the only one possible.

It seems to be the only one supported by the Scriptures and not subject to the random interpretations of men who put more faith in the creation than the Creator.

Wellll, it seems to you. Not to everyone.

It also seems to be supported by Christ, who routinely referred to the Scriptures as absolute historic fact.

Simply false. Jesus did mention things in the OT, along with many of his parables and so on. If you have a verse where He says "this is historical fact", then please present it, or stop stating it.

I'm not posting my interpretations of anything. I'm posting what the Bible clearly states.

Anytime anyone posts a single word beyond simply copying the exact text, they are adding things and thus adding their interpretation. Being that your posts contain words penned by you, then obviously, they contain your interpretation.

That verse is clearly using a colorful expression to make a point; ...

Sure, just as Gen 1 & 2 use poetic verse to make a point.

It's clearly a very different usage of language than "The evening and the morning were the third day." Anyone can see this.

No, it isn't, and top theologians, and millions of Christians, have pointed this out.

Why do you obfuscate the obvious clear language and attempt to deliberately misinterpret the Scriptures?

Again, we are back to claiming that your interpretation is somehow right, and anyone else's wrong. I wish I were surprised.

The Bible uses a lot of analogies and metaphors, but when it speaks of creation it uses language that cannot possibly be interpreted any other way without changing the language itself.

Sure it can, as pointed out earlier.

Moreover, Jesus affirmed that the flood was an actual event, and He was witness to it.

​

Again, waiting for the statement that he wasn't referring to a well known story, just as Boener last year referred to Humpty Dumpty. Just because he mentioned it doesn't mean he's saying "this is historical fact", unless of course, you can show that he did say "this is historical fact".


In Christ-

Papias

 

[damoncasale]

Yes, I'm interested in secular history also, and have quite a few books in my personal library. But I read all history through the filter of the perfect history in the Bible. The scriptures are the only source that God inspired and superintended.

What I find is an uncanny resemblance in secular history of the biblical stories. The egyptian creation story in particular bore some striking resemblances. Flood legends are an obvious parallel as well found in all cultures.

I see. I suppose that makes sense of why you see things the way you do, then. Myself, I see the same parallels, but I consider them to have influenced the biblical account. Genesis 1-3 became a polemic which used the same literary style to refute the moral relativism of Sumer, for instance.

As for my upbringing, I was raised in a liberal Methodist church environment, with my parents being very unreligious. I read the Bible for myself, and became a believer at age 25.

Out of curiosity, were either of your parents the highly opinionated type, whether about politics, climate change, or anything else?

Given our respective backgrounds, I don't think we'll come to terms on how we see things, but at least understanding how our respective beliefs have been formed and shaped by our experiences is valuable.

Damon

 

[damoncasale]

What was it that convinced you that, basically, you can throw the Bible when it disagrees with unscriptural stories of molecules to man? At some point you have to decide whether you serve a supernatural God or simply live in a universe that is governed exclusively by natural law. Perhaps at an early age actually seeing supernatural entities that science denies exist convinced me that there is more to this existence than the physical world. Science can make a compelling case for some of their theories, but when they say that all the matter in the universe once occupied a space smaller than an atom I just have to laugh. Compressing trillions of trillions of tons of matter into something even the size of our earth would make it so incredibly dense that nothing short of the hand of God could disperse it. Contrast this with the knowledge that matter and energy are convertible; that God's energy could create matter without even violation natural law. With science if you go back far enough you run into the impossible. With God, all things are possible.

Actually, before I really understood what I was doing, I followed the biblical instructions for casting out a demon (e.g., pray and fast) and cast out two over the course of a couple of years, while I was in college. One of them was in a cousin of mine, and another was in someone I met over the internet who claimed to have an alternate personality that allowed them to feel feminine emotions. So I definitely believe in "spiritual entities" as you put it, too.

Anyway, I think your tone is getting a bit accusatory, here. Regardless, I think we disagree on the relative worth of science vs. the bible, and I doubt either of us are going to change our respective positions as a result of this discussion.

The Apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint for historical and religious purposes, but are not recognized by Protestant Christians or Orthodox Jews as canonical (inspired by God). Most reformed teachers will point out that the New Testament writers never quoted from the Apocryphal books, and that the Apocrypha was never considered part of the canonical Jewish scripture.

Actually, Jude quoted from the apocryphal book of Enoch. But neither here nor there, my point wasn't about apocryphal books, it was about the genealogies in the Septuagint version of Genesis, and about men of faith in ancient times who tried to come to grips with what they saw as contradictory evidence.

How much study do you think they've done with floods over 10,000 feet deep, which would be required to cover even the lower mountains in the area? That kind of pressure can turn sediment into rock in a very short time span.

Then wouldn't it do that worldwide? And wouldn't we run into that rocky layer at a consistent depth everywhere, in archaeological excavations?

That's what I was saying before, that I'd looked at the evidence for a global flood and found contradictory evidence. I own a copy of The Genesis Flood, and during college I took great pride in poking holes in Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. (Not that I'm proud of that kind of behavior now, that is.) So it's not like I'm simply siding with science for no good reason.

Look, you're obviously convinced from the effort and research you've put into things, but I'm not. Nothing you've said thus far has done anything to resolve those doubts, so I don't know that we'll get anywhere by continuing.

Damon

 

[Calminian]

I see. I suppose that makes sense of why you see things the way you do, then. Myself, I see the same parallels, but I consider them to have influenced the biblical account. Genesis 1-3 became a polemic which used the same literary style to refute the moral relativism of Sumer, for instance.

Again I have to wonder why you would trust other ancient texts more than the Bible? If you trust Christ for your salvation, and if you trust God raised him from the dead, why would you not trust Him on the writings of Moses? Genesis is an impeccable record of antiquity. The other accounts from greek and egyptian mythologies are obviously corrupted and filled with religious symbolisms. When you look at the Genesis flood account compared to all others, there's no comparison. It should be very obvious which is the most well preserved account.

But for me, I've gotten to the point where I don't doubt the Bible every time some contradictory evidence pops up. Eventually, you just come to trust in God's word.

Out of curiosity, were either of your parents the highly opinionated type, whether about politics, climate change, or anything else?...

No, not really.

 

[damoncasale]

Again I have to wonder why you would trust other ancient texts more than the Bible?

Dude, what is it with the trusting other ancient texts? What does that have to do with what I just said? It's like you're not even reading what I wrote. Either that, or not really understanding it.

I'm not looking at other ancient texts for doctrine, and that, in my opinion, is the only reason why a comment from you about "trusting other ancient texts" would be a reasonable caution to my approach. Instead, I'm looking to them for CULTURAL CONTEXT. I really hope you understand what that means. It has nothing to do with not looking to Jesus, or anything remotely like it.

It's as if, to a man with a hammer (or in your case, an oft-overused rebuttal), everything looks like a nail. I'm not your typical "bible doubter" so please stop treating me like I fit in a square box, and start actually listening to me. That is, if you want to have a conversation instead of dictating to me how I should think.

But for me, I've gotten to the point where I don't doubt the Bible every time some contradictory evidence pops up. Eventually, you just come to trust in God's word.

I'm glad that works for you. It doesn't work for me. For about ten years (from high school onwards), I was a firm believer in a literal Creation. And when my pastor started to talk about pre-Flood characters like Adam, Enoch, Lamech, and Noah, and set them in the context of Mesopotamia, I got interested in reading the books he was quoting from for myself. And the more I studied, the more I realized a literal Creation just didn't work. In my opinion. YMMV.

No, not really.

Then that makes me wonder why you ended up so highly opinionated. Whether that was a reaction to something else in your background, or what.

Damon

 

[Calminian]

I'm not looking at other ancient texts for doctrine...

Who mentioned doctrine? I didn't. Only you're talking about doctrine. I'm talking about historical events and timelines. I'm wondering why you don't think Moses got these right, and these other texts did.

Why your'e getting upset I have no idea. We're just talking here.

Instead, I'm looking to them for CULTURAL CONTEXT. ..

Me too. I use the Bible to get cultural context of other ancient records. That's because Christ vouched for the writings of Moses. I'm just wondering why you don't think Moses provides any context for the ancient texts you've chosen to believe.

It's as if, to a man with a hammer (or in your case, an oft-overused rebuttal), everything looks like a nail. I'm not your typical "bible doubter" so please stop treating me like I fit in a square box, and start actually listening to me. That is, if you want to have a conversation instead of dictating to me how I should think.

Well shoot, I don't know what to say. I don't see any big differences. Please forgive me.

I'm glad that works for you. It doesn't work for me.

I totally understand. I'm just curious why not, which is why I'm asking questions. Obviously the inquires are offending you, so I'll cease with them.

Then that makes me wonder why you ended up so highly opinionated....

LOL! I was just thinking the same thing... but about you. You seem to fly off the handle when an alternative opinion is expressed, or tough question is asked.

I guess we just don't agree on anything. But I'll move on. I can see this is a dead end.

 

[damoncasale]

Who mentioned doctrine? I didn't. Only you're talking about doctrine. I'm talking about historical events and timelines. I'm wondering why you don't think Moses got these right, and these other texts did.

...really?

So you're saying, all the history I'll ever need is in the bible? I can ignore secular histories (which might have additional facts and details, etc.) and just read the bible?

I'm sorry, I can hardly believe you're saying this. I'm not crediting other ancient literature with "getting things right," in the same way that I wouldn't read Shakespeare for a historical lesson on King Lear. You really, honestly thought that's what I was doing? Really?

I totally understand. I'm just curious why not, which is why I'm asking questions. Obviously the inquires are offending you, so I'll cease with them.

It's the way you're wording things. The one post of yours with the paragraph starting with "What was it that convinced you that, basically, you can throw the Bible when it disagrees with unscriptural stories of molecules to man?" was a bit on the lecturing side, rather than attempting to understand where I'm coming from, although granted, I did make a similar comment in my post before that one. Anyway, as long as this is give and take, where we're attempting to understand one another, that's great.

Anyway, I think what it boils down to is, differences between science (or archaeology) and the bible don't seem to bother you. You're fully prepared to simply accept what the bible says wholesale. You've checked it out to some extent, and to the extent that what you've checked out matches with what the bible says, you're cool with that. And to the extent that it doesn't, your understanding is that science (or archaeology, or what-have-you) must have gotten it wrong.

Would that be an accurate description? I'm trying to be unbiased, here, not intending to be critical at all.

Anyway, on my part, when I looked into those differences, I found more and more things that just didn't match up. I kept researching, hoping to figure out what and how science might have gotten it wrong, but the more I researched, the more I found that that just wasn't very likely. Doing something like assuming that, no matter what the scientific evidence is (e.g., Carbon-14 dating, thermoluminescence dating, stratigraphic dating, pottery classification, etc., etc.), if it gives a result at variance with a literal interpretation of the bible, ruling that it MUST be wrong, just doesn't work for me. It seems that it does for you, but it doesn't for me.

Understand, I had two parents, both of whom I loved, who kept telling each other that they "must" be wrong about their respective, vastly different religious beliefs. So I place a lot of value on not taking anyone's word for it, but on carefully researching things out for myself.

Again, YMMV.

Damon

 

[Archie the Preacher]

At some point you have to decide whether you serve a supernatural God or simply live in a universe that is governed exclusively by natural law.

At some point, you have to understand just exactly WHO established 'natural law'. Once you grasp that, you will understand just how silly this statement reads.

Just for the record, God is eternal; He has been around more than the 6,000 years since Ussher's creation date. Much bigger than the current popular concept, it seems.

Perhaps at an early age actually seeing supernatural entities that science denies exist convinced me that there is more to this existence than the physical world.

This sounds too good to pass up.

I have no doubt about angels, if you want to class them in the 'supernatural entity' category. I have no doubt an angel kept me from going over the edge of a hill country road in my youth, probably more I didn't realize at the time. However, I never 'saw' one.

So did what you see introduce himself? Or did you just 'see something'? How can you tell you witnessed a supernatural entity?