Question From A New Christian

[Split Rock]

It is not known whether they are really based off base 60, but it is a possibility. If the stories were taken from older stories from sumaria then the base 60 error would make sense, since the sumarians and babylonians used a base 60 system instead of base 10.

This makes a great deal of sense, because in the Sumerian King's List, the first kings lived ridiculously long lives (from: http://www.ragz-international.com/sumerian_king_list.htm):
Sumerian mythology also mentions a flood used to punish man, which is probably where the Hebrews got the story from.

After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug. In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years. Alaljar ruled for 36000 years. 2 kings; they ruled for 64800 years. Then Eridug fell and the kingship was taken to Bad-tibira. In Bad-tibira, En-men-lu-ana ruled for 43200 years. En-men-gal-ana ruled for 28800 years. Dumuzid, the shepherd, ruled for 36000 years. 3 kings; they ruled for 108000 years. Then Bad-tibira fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Larag. In Larag, En-sipad-zid-ana ruled for 28800 years. 1 king; he ruled for 28800 years. Then Larag fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Zimbir. In Zimbir, En-men-dur-ana became king; he ruled for 21000 years. 1 king; he ruled for 21000 years. Then Zimbir fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Curuppag. In Curuppag, Ubara-Tutu became king; he ruled for 18600 years. 1 king; he ruled for 18600 years. In 5 cities 8 kings; they ruled for 241200 years. Then the flood swept over...

Eventually, we get to kings that have left an archeological record of their reign, and their years in power are more reasonable:

In Unug, Lugal-zage-si became king; he ruled for 25 (ms. P3+BT14 has instead: 34) years. 1 king; he ruled for 25 (ms. P3+BT14 has instead: 34) years. Then Unug was defeated (ms. S has instead: Then the reign of Unug was abolished) and the kingship was taken to Agade.

In Agade, Sargon, whose father was a gardener, the cupbearer of Ur-Zababa, became king, the king of Agade, who built Agade (ms. L1+N1 has instead: under whom Agade was built); he ruled for 56 (ms. L1+N1 has instead: 55) (ms. TL has instead: 54) years. Rimuc, the son of Sargon, ruled for 9 (ms. IB has instead: 7) (ms. L1+N1 has instead: 15) years. Man-icticcu, the older brother of Rimuc, the son of Sargon, ruled for 15 (ms. L1+N1 has instead: 7) years. Naram-Suen, the son of Man-icticcu, ruled for (mss. L1+N1, P3+BT14 have 56 years. Car-kali-carri, the son of Naram-Suen, ruled for (ms. L1+N1, Su+Su4 have 25 (ms. P3+BT14 has instead: 24) years. (ms. P3+BT14 adds 157 are the years of the dynasty of Sargon...

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's not about interpreting, it is literal, otherwise the whole bible may as well be taken as some kind of metaphorical blabber.

So you don't try to interpret anything you read.

And if a single part of the Bible is not 100% literall, you'd toss out the whole thing as useless "metaphorical blabber."

Does it bother you to know that there are Atheists who hold the Bible in higher respect than you do?

How do you know that it is poetry? Were you there

Use your head, junior...

How do you study history and literature? Were you there?

 

[Mistermystery]

I choose to follow the creationist POV when it come to science and the bible and therefore I follow creationist theroies and the evidence they have put forward is very strong usually refuting evolution in head to head comparisons. (naturally I follow the bible first)

The easy awnser is not always the right one. I am sorry to tell you that you've been lied to.

 

[Cybershark5886]

This makes a great deal of sense, because in the Sumerian King's List, the first kings lived ridiculously long lives


Yes, I know all about the Sumerian King list and their extremely long life spans listed. Still how does a base 60 system fit in with 900 year life spans in the Bible? If that is the case then then Adam and his off spring only lived a matter of days if the result of a base 60 system only reached the 900s, unlike the Sumerian king list.

And aside from that issue the Bible still should be taken literaly on issues involving lifespans.

 

[Mistermystery]

and to the person who said that we evolved from monkeys: shame on you.

 

[Vance]

Now, you do know that the Hebrew word "Adam" means simply "Man" or "mankind", do you not?

It means Man, yes, as well (with slight modification) as Woman.

But the singularity and individuality of Adam as a person is well defined in the scriptures.

No, it is well-defined in a literal reading of Scripture, and you have not established that the literal reading is necessarily the correct one.

A literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is not required for a belief in the Truth of the Bible.

A literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is not even required for a literal reading of other passages (since we need to approach each text on its own ground).

A non-literal reading does not, in any way, have a negative impact on the Gospel message of salvation.

A literal reading does not fit with the facts we find from God's Creation itself.

 

[Cybershark5886]

and to the person who said that we evolved from monkeys: shame on you

You just shamed alot of evolutionists and the media. Oh well, atleast I'm not part of either of those groups.

And for the record what is the technical name for the species that we supposedly evolved from? Australopithecus? Maybe the evolutionists need to get read up more on the facts then because people just generalize to "monkey" often. Including the "infamous" Scopes Monkey trial.

 

[Mistermystery]

and to the person who said that we evolved from monkeys: shame on you

You just shamed alot of evolutionists and the media. Oh well, atleast I'm not part of either of those groups.
.

Name those "alot" evolutionists. I can understand that the media gets it wrong, but please, cite your sources.

 

[Mistermystery]

It's not about interpreting, it is literal, otherwise the whole bible may as well be taken as some kind of metaphorical blabber.

And this sentence alone is enough proof to see how dangerous creationism is to Christianity when they want to force their quasi-interpretation upon you.

 

[Cybershark5886]

A literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is not required for a belief in the Truth of the Bible.

A literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is not even required for a literal reading of other passages (since we need to approach each text on its own ground).



Just for the record though Jesus quoted from both genesis 1 and 2 in the same mouthful with an obvious reguard that there was no contradiction. And the problem is, that if we try to undermine some of the things in Genesis then we will ultimately leave room to deny other things in the bible. Such as the basis of marriage, clothes, sin (and its definition), and God's covenant. We start to undermine these and there goes our Christian morals. Genesis is the foundation for many things in the Bible, even some of Jesus' teachings.

 

[Vance]

Have you not considered that this nickname for the trial was given by non-evolutionists.

But the problem with your statement is to ask which specific species we evolved from. We evolved from a LOT of species over time. Monkeys and apes and humans (three distinct groups) evolved from a common ancestor (which answers the very common, but very ignorant questions many YEC's ask "if evolution is true, why do we still have apes?"). Through the new genetic studies, we can even get a fairly clear idea of when this "break" occured.

As for what that earlier common ancestor looked like, it was probably very "ape-like" to our modern eyes. Of course, this means it was not very monkey-like since monkeys and apes are very different. As it turns out, actually, we are genetically closer to apes than apes are to monkeys, IIRC.

 

[Cybershark5886]

Name those "alot" evolutionists. I can understand that the media gets it wrong, but please, cite your sources.

School for one, any arguement that I've been in so far involving evolution for two, and popular generalization (Scopes Monkey Trial). I'm afraid that in the same context "human" is an incorrect name also. Maybe we should all stop saying "human" as well.

P.S. Dude it's just a generalization. There are different species of monkeys (primates to be more exact) and different relatives to them as well including apes, gorrillas, chimpanzees, etc. And please, as I asked before please give me your desired technical name for our supposed "evolutionary ancestors".

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

It's the old story.

Are people really so unsophisticated in their thinking (like, I mean, at sort of pre-pubescent level) that they really think:

1) If it's not literal it's not true in any way
2) If Jesus quoted it, it must be literal
3) If one part of it is non literal, the whole thing is meangingless?

I presume these people never read poetry, fiction, listen to music, appreciate art? Either that, or there is a massive intellectual disconnect between the way they approach the Bible and the way they approach the concept of truth in every other part of their lives.

 

[Mistermystery]

A literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is not required for a belief in the Truth of the Bible.

A literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is not even required for a literal reading of other passages (since we need to approach each text on its own ground).



Just for the record though Jesus quoted from both genesis 1 and 2 in the same mouthful with an obvious reguard that there was no contradiction. And the problem is, that if we try to undermine some of the things in Genesis then we will ultimately leave room to deny other things in the bible. Such as the basis of marriage, clothes, sin (and its definition), and God's covenant. We start to undermine these and there goes our Christian morals. Genesis is the foundation for many things in the Bible, even some of Jesus' teachings.

If genesis doesn't contradict please explain a 2 simple problems I have for me:

When were stars created according to the bible?

On the fourth day of creation, after the earth was made says Gen.1:16-19
He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven.... And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Job 38:4-7 says Before the earth was made.

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... When the morning stars sang together.


And when was man/woman created? Gen.1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)
Gen.2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)
---
Gen.1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
Gen.2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

 

[Mistermystery]

Name those "alot" evolutionists. I can understand that the media gets it wrong, but please, cite your sources.

School for one,

You specifically said that evolutionists (people who are schooled/teached/learmned about evolution) were spreading false information. I've began to write angry letters to them, but now it seems that I don't hve to. Because you just revealed yourself to be a Hovind wannabe.

any arguement that I've been in so far involving evolution for two, and popular generalization

Have you ever studied the theory of evolution? I don't mean in dept, but just learned about the basics? I hear you making a lot os claims, but I don't think you could even bring up a correct definition of Evolution. If you can, please do so.

P.S. Dude it's just a generalization.

And as it turned out to be an incorrect one. I suggest you apologize.

And please, as I asked before please give me your desired technical name for our supposed "evolutionary ancestors".

I'm perfectly well by calling my "evolutionairy ancestors". I have no desire to give it a technical name. If you want to know more about evolution of humans, I'm sure someone could direct you to a more technical page on that subject. Anyone?

 

[Cybershark5886]

If one part of it is non literal, the whole thing is meangingless?


Not meaningless, contradictory. It leaves room for contradiction and misinterpretation. And God's authoritive word cannot have contraditions in it, because then it wouldn't be God's word. The Bible is truth. And the Bible says that "IF you abide in my word, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

But undermining the basic principles of Genesis will lead to other ideas that this part of this book in the Bible must not be litteral and then we all of a sudden have a big list of exceptions to God's word in order that we may live our lives how we want. One church in the past (in the middle ages I think) retranslated the Bible to say "You SHALL commit adultery". And several other ammendements to God commands and words. And undermining Genesis is a great place to get way off track, for genesis is the foundation book of the Bible that leads up to even WHY Jesus had to come into the world.

 

[Mistermystery]

If genesis doesn't contradict please explain a 2 simple problems I have for me:

When were stars created according to the bible?

On the fourth day of creation, after the earth was made says Gen.1:16-19
He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven.... And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Job 38:4-7 says Before the earth was made.

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... When the morning stars sang together.


And when was man/woman created? Gen.1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)
Gen.2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)
---
Gen.1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
Gen.2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

To cybershark, please don't reply to this message. I can't delete it anymore, but I don't want to derail the thread. if you want to talk about this, make a new thread about it, or give me a pm, but let's stick to evolution in this thread.

 

[Cybershark5886]

On the fourth day of creation, after the earth was made says Gen.1:16-19
He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven.... And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Job 38:4-7 says Before the earth was made.

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... When the morning stars sang together.

That is a matter or reading and interpretation in which I have no expertise. It would require further research (like the whole "Genesis days" issue). But I assure you that they are complementary accounts (like 3 other instances in the Bible: 1 Kings & 1 Chronicles, 2 Kings & 2 Chronicles, and the 4 Gospels).

And when was man/woman created? Gen.1:25-27

Gen.1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
Gen.2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

That is the part that Jesus quoted from, tying the two accounts together. Look in the Gospels and you'll see what I'm talking about. Ambiguity is sometimes present in Bible passages but many can be resolved by complementary accounts in the scriptures and occasional archeological/historical finds.


Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I've solved the mystery of Genesis' interpretation. But I am saying that I know that the 6 day creation is literal (as can be seen in various places in scripture, and even straight from God's mouth at Sinai). Revelation and Genesis are still books of heavy discussion involving interpretation. I'm merely casting my lot in among them with what I know to be true.

 

[Cybershark5886]

To cybershark, please don't reply to this message. I can't delete it anymore, but I don't want to derail the thread. if you want to talk about this, make a new thread about it, or give me a pm, but let's stick to evolution in this thread.

Whoops... too late.


At any rate I have to be going now. I'll be sure to visit here tommorow. And don't get me wrong in thinking that I think that I know every thing. I just know certain things in which there are truth in the Bible. And no I'm not ignorant to forms of evolution that have been observed (Macro evolution) but I'm going with a creationist approach when I say that we didn't evolve (Adam would have been the only one to evolve anyway in the full right of Theistic evolutionists I think), and that the Bible means what it said when it said that God created Adam from the dust.

Anyways, peace be with you all and keep on loving Jesus. He's the only thing that matters in the long run anyways.

~Cybershark5886

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

If one part of it is non literal, the whole thing is meangingless?


Not meaningless, contradictory. It leaves room for contradiction and misinterpretation.

But that happens anyway. If the Bible was intended to be clear, non contradictory and obvious of interpretation, it has clearly failed, as evidenced by the thousands of denominations, many based on just such disagreements.

Perhaps the Bible wasn't intended to be like that? What if it was meant to be able to speak to different people in different ways, rather than always having a simple single, always the same, meaning? What if it really was alive with the Spirit of God in that way?

And God's authoritive word cannot have contraditions in it, because then it wouldn't be God's word.

But why does it have to be God's word? Where does it say it is? It doesn't; ironically, the same sola scriptura people who insist it is God's word have to use the extra biblical doctrine that it is...

We did a Bible study on this weeks ago in Liberal Theology. It turned out that "word of God" could refer to:

(a) a specific revelation to a particular person
(b) the preaching of the gospel
(c) Our Lord Jesus Christ.

We couldn't find anywhere where it meant the Bible. Odd, eh?

The Bible is truth. And the Bible says that "IF you abide in my word, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

But, as Pilate asked, "what is truth". Jesus said (not the Bible) that He is the truth. What does that mean? If truth is a person, is it the simple propositional thing you are taking it to be?

But undermining the basic principles of Genesis

Now you misunderstand. No Christians here are wanting to undermine the basic principles; indeed, on casting away a rigid adherence to a literal interpretation, one is freed to seek after the real underlying teachings of the stories.

will lead to other ideas that this part of this book in the Bible must not be litteral and then we all of a sudden have a big list of exceptions to God's word

You seem to be equating "not literal" with "not true" - again, do you work with that definition in any other area of life?

in order that we may live our lives how we want.

Nasty. Ascribing evil motives without a good basis is a sin.

One church in the past (in the middle ages I think) retranslated the Bible to say "You SHALL commit adultery".

It was a printing error, not a mistranslation. It was rather embarrassing, and they all had to be recalled. Difficult in those days.

And several other ammendements to God commands and words.

Please spare me the usual KJV-only nitpicking, I beg.

And undermining Genesis is a great place to get way off track, for genesis is the foundation book of the Bible that leads up to even WHY Jesus had to come into the world.

Again, no-one is trying to undermine Genesis. I have a very clear idea from my non-literalist position of why Jesus had to come. There is no problem.