Originally posted by whodey You are right, it was written to man. Therefore, if you were writing this in ancient times, would you attempt to go into what billions of years means? I even have trouble understanding what it means. Or would you condense it into a period of time for which ancient man had a point of reference such as a number of days?
Originally posted by jaywill I think dinosaurs, the dead ones who left fossils, probably pre-dated the creation of Adam.
As long as we understand that the first man created was Adam and that there was a world commited to his deputy authority, there is no conflict.
A previous order of things under the deputy authority of the being who became Satan, involved sin and death.
...[text shortened]... ated them from their bodies. Therefore they seek to possess the physical bodies of human beings.
God created a three breasted woman , and she complained that the middle one was too cumbersome. So god removed it and she asked Him, "What are you going to do with that useless boob.?"
Then God created Adam.
Originally posted by whodey You are right, it was written to man. Therefore, if you were writing this in ancient times, would you attempt to go into what billions of years means? I even have trouble understanding what it means. Or would you condense it into a period of time for which ancient man had a point of reference such as a number of days?
So you are saying that the Bible is actually inaccurate because it tries to simplify in order to help its readers understand? Could it be that the flood was also only regional and since to everyone at the time the region was the world it says world. Maybe when Jesus says "I am the way" he is just simplifying it for you as you probably wouldn't understand the truth. Maybe when God parted the Red Sea it was really a lake that got parted, nobody knew the lakes name so they needed a "point of reference" so why not call it the Red Sea. And when all the first borns in Egypt were killed it was actually only five first borns but people needed ......
Originally posted by twhitehead So you are saying that the Bible is actually inaccurate because it tries to simplify in order to help its readers understand? Could it be that the flood was also only regional and since to everyone at the time the region was the world it says world. Maybe when Jesus says "I am the way" he is just simplifying it for you as you probably wouldn't understand ...[text shortened]... t borns in Egypt were killed it was actually only five first borns but people needed ......
I think these points are all entirely possible and likely.
Originally posted by twhitehead So you are saying that the Bible is actually inaccurate because it tries to simplify in order to help its readers understand? Could it be that the flood was also only regional and since to everyone at the time the region was the world it says world. Maybe when Jesus says "I am the way" he is just simplifying it for you as you probably wouldn't understand ...[text shortened]... t borns in Egypt were killed it was actually only five first borns but people needed ......
I suppose anythings possible. The sky is the limit. However, if one is to consider the notion of a supernatural being such as God, why is it hard to fathom the parting of the Red Sea? After all, if God is powerless, then how did we get here? I suppose you could argue that he had enough power to put creation in motion but not to part the Red Sea or that he simply has no interest in violating the known laws of nature. Either way, however, the notion seems odd to me. Either one should admit that the supernatural occurs or it does not. If the later is true, God must not exist because even creation, no matter how it came about, could be labeled a supernatural event. In fact, I find the notion of the existence of life much more amazing than the simple parting of the Red Sea.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles What in the world are you talking about? How does any sane person come to believe such things?
It's so nice when I don't have to worry about being polite and tactful because someone's going to cut to the chase for me. Thank you for being the voice of sanity.
Originally posted by pawnhandler It's so nice when I don't have to worry about being polite and tactful because someone's going to cut to the chase for me. Thank you for being the voice of sanity.
Originally posted by whodey I suppose anythings possible. The sky is the limit. However, if one is to consider the notion of a supernatural being such as God, why is it hard to fathom the parting of the Red Sea?
It was you that said that fathoming 1000s of years was hard so God decided that it would be simpler to write 6 days. I never said fathoming the parting of the Red Sea was hard, in fact I said that it was simpler for the people at the time than the truth (which was a unknown lake) because the people knew about the Red Sea but did not know the lake.
I have noticed a tendency amongst Christians to believe everything in the Bible unless it has been shown to be false due to conflict with science or historical records. What is most interesting is the elaborate explanations given for why some parts of the Bible are wrong. It is apparent to me that it is important to most Christians to believe that whatever explanation is given it must not shed doubt on the rest of the Bible. For example no Christian will ever say "Genesis wasn't meant to be in the Bible" because that sheds doubt on all the other books. I know Christians who think Revelations is little more than the writings of a madman but they will never admit that it shouldn't be in the Bible and will make up fantastic excuses for keeping it in.
Originally posted by whodey I think it an assumption to think that sin did not enter the world until the time of Adam's fall. In fact, in the book of Enoch Lucifer is said to have fallen on the second day of creation. If so, Satan and his world of sin was here looooong before the time of Adam. If so, perhaps Adam was put here to try and help restore order to God's creation? Perhaps we are still in the process, so to speak? Assume what you will.
We can address that crap later if we're so inclined. Right now, I'm just trying to get RB to paint a picture for me of what the theropods that roamed at the time of Adam were like.
Originally posted by twhitehead It was you that said that fathoming 1000s of years was hard so God decided that it would be simpler to write 6 days. I never said fathoming the parting of the Red Sea was hard, in fact I said that it was simpler for the people at the time than the truth (which was a unknown lake) because the people knew about the Red Sea but did not know the lake.
I have ...[text shortened]... dmit that it shouldn't be in the Bible and will make up fantastic excuses for keeping it in.
To say that the Genesis account is in the lesst bit way a comprehensive account is laughable. Likewise, to say that Revelation is a comprehensive account of the future is laughable. These accounts are simply breif snapshots into the past and future. Therefore, to say that one understands comprehensivly what will come is laughable. As a result, those who read such books may conclude they have a comprehensive view of both books and those that do bear me out, however, their claims are laughable. There remains much mystery in terms of what has happened in the past as well as the future for both the believer and nonbeleiver. The only difference is that the believer claims to have some knowledge of the future and past and that they are still fitting the peices of the puzzle together. Conversly, many atheists also think they have a comprehensive outlook in terms of the Biblical past and future from what they read as do some believers. Then when those atheists see the believers fitting the peices of the puzzle together they scoff and say that we are making the peices fit.
Originally posted by RBHILL whatever God gave them to eat. What if there where big friuts that were around before the flood and now they don't exist anymore?
Great point. God probably supplied them with really friggin' big pieces of fruit. Maybe with tough meaty-like textured rinds to suit the theropodan makeup. Probably fortified them with all the specific nutrients necessary for the dinos to flourish (up until He drowned them ?all? out).
16 Jul '07 23:10
Creation
Back to Top