Question for young earthers, hint: RJ

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes but once you stop treating the bible as being literally true and thus inherently open to
be interpreted then it ceases to have any value as a guide because you can interpret it to
mean almost anything you want.

If you are interpreting it (or your preacher is) then you have to have faith that either you or
you and your preacher are interpreti ...[text shortened]... ral guide then why not abandon it altogether and
decide based on evidence and reason?

You are being too logical.

Originally posted by whodey
I am not a YEC, I am an OEC.

As far as scientific evidience that the universe is billions of years old, it is overwhelming. I suppose it plausible to question one method of measuring time, like carbon dating, but not a hand full of means to calculate the passage of time, such as the one you brought up.

So does this mean I throw out Genesis? Not at all, I simply don't believe the 6 days to be 6 literal days.

So you do not believe the Bible is literal, at least where there is scientific evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Originally posted by whodey
I am not a YEC, I am an OEC.

As far as scientific evidience that the universe is billions of years old, it is overwhelming. I suppose it plausible to question one method of measuring time, like carbon dating, but not a hand full of means to calculate the passage of time, such as the one you brought up.

So does this mean I throw out Genesis? Not at all, I simply don't believe the 6 days to be 6 literal days.

So I guess you do thrown out literal words in Genesis, and thus you do not always believe in the literal Bible. What about John 3:16? How do you pick and choose which portions of the Bible to be taken literally or not. Blind faith?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes but once you stop treating the bible as being literally true and thus inherently open to
be interpreted then it ceases to have any value as a guide because you can interpret it to
mean almost anything you want.

If you are interpreting it (or your preacher is) then you have to have faith that either you or
you and your preacher are interpreting it correctly IN ADDITION TO having faith in what you
actually decide it means.

You are correct. In fact, I came from the YEC crowd. Preachers would get up their and wail away against evolution and science. Then you see things like the Creation museum in Kentucky built to debunk science.

Of course, in rebuttal you have scientists like Dawkins get up in his pulpit as well and wail away at theology and say things like evolution disproves the Bible. He then writes books to help debunk religion, specifically the Bible.

So basically you have individuals with various expertise and respect for a certain focus of study and a novice in the other field that they are at war with and try to debunk. It is a comedy of errors to say the least.

So what swayed me? I guess it was the understanding the the theory of evolution does not disprove the Bible and vice versa. It was also a result of scientists like Dr. Gerald Schroeder who is also educated in theology. He wrote the book, "Genesis and the Big Bang" which discusses his views on the matter. As you say, you can take the Bible and try and twist it any which way you wish, so that is why in his book he took the writings of rabbis of the distant past and studied them. What he found was startling. You have a group of pre-modern science rabbis come together in agreement that their Hebrew translation of Genesis does not indicate to them that creation was 6 literal days, but much longer. They also came to some other interesting conclusions such as Adam and Eve were not alone in the Garden, but that there were other "humnaoids" about. Keep in mind that this is all from translating Genesis in Hebrew and passed down information.

Just to make things interesting, he came up with his own math regarding the 6 days of Genesis. He said that if in each creation day time halved, that would mean day one was 8 billion years long, and day 2 was 4 billion days long etc. It turns out that according to his time table the Cambrian explosion matches with day 5 when sea creatures were made etc.

Originally posted by googlefudge
My question to you is why believe any of it?

If you don't accept it as being literally true (very sensible) then why regard it as any kind of
source of truth and simply go where the evidence leads, and say "I don't know" to questions
that are not yet answered?

What's the point in believing in the bible if it isn't literally true? Because it's triv ral guide then why not abandon it altogether and
decide based on evidence and reason?[/b]

Why believe any of it? Well to start off with, I have respect for the written word. You see a book of silly myths like Noah's ark and I see a book that corraborates the ancient myths in the region regarding a great flood. Something happened. You see a book about a great many fantasy like myths and I see a book used by Biblical Archaeologists who use it to find sites to dig. You see a book of outdated laws and I see a book that is a historical record of man's struggle with sin nature, the antedote for which is love, which is the embodiment of one Jesus Christ.

Of course, you make the assumption that the Bible is not literally true. If you look at Dr. Gerald's Schroeders work, could it be that the Bible was not taken literally enough and missed in translation?

To sum up, I never made the assumption that the Bible is flawless, people do that with theological arguements. No where does it say its flawless, it only claims to be the inspired word of God, for which more truth lies within it than not. I would say that about 99% is spot on.

Originally posted by whodey

Just to make things interesting, he came up with his own math regarding the 6 days of Genesis. He said that if in each creation day time halved, that would mean day one was 8 billion years long, and day 2 was 4 billion days long etc. It turns out that according to his time table the Cambrian explosion matches with day 5 when sea creatures were made etc.

with that kind of liberal interpretation, you can make the bible say anything you want!

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
with that kind of liberal interpretation, you can make the bible say anything you want!

This does not come from the interpretation of Genesis. If you read my post, it states that Schroeder first used rabbinical writings that indicated the 6 days of creation were much longer. He then speculates as to how long they might be and how it might correlate with what is known in terms of scientific knowledge.

It's an interesting read. I'm not sure he is right but it is interesting nonetheless.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sorry, that's what comes from writing posts while listening to podcasts.

However a response to my question which doesn't have anything to do with evolution,
would be nice.

I think I responded to this speed of light issue and the great distances
between astronomical objecst already. Briefly, I quoted in the Bible
where it says God spread out the heavens. The idea is that the things
in heaven were closer together in the beginning when they were created.
Therefore, light did not have to travel as far as it does today. Scientists
have verified that the heaves are still expanding. So, without more
accurate data the age of the heavens can not be calculated. 😏

Originally posted by whodey
Of course, in rebuttal you have scientists like Dawkins get up in his pulpit as well and wail away at theology and say things like evolution disproves the Bible.

Can you quote him on that?

Originally posted by whodey
It's an interesting read. I'm not sure he is right but it is interesting nonetheless.

Do you find anything interesting that might possibly support your beliefs, no matter how ridiculous and contrived it is?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you quote him on that?

Actually, I saw him interviewed in the movie "Expelled" as he said as much. Have you seen it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you find anything interesting that might possibly support your beliefs, no matter how ridiculous and contrived it is?

His time theory is no more contrived than abiogenesis is. Basically, you see point A and then point B and then ask how we could have gotten from point A to point B.

Again, I DON"T know if he is right or not but I have a feeling he is on to something. Before bashing it you may want to have a peak.

Originally posted by whodey
Actually, I saw him interviewed in the movie "Expelled" as he said as much. Have you seen it?

Page 4 The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins published in 2009 -

It is frequently, and rightly, said that senior clergy and theologians have no problem with evolution and, in any cases, actively support scientists in this respect. This is often true, as i know from the agreeable experience of collaborating with the then Bishop of Oxford, now Lord Harries, on two separate occasions

Originally posted by FabianFnas
When I said, in another thread, about christians and low education, I had RJHinds in mind.

but you still used one individual to assume someth8ing about a group

its called prejudice

Originally posted by whodey
Actually, I saw him interviewed in the movie "Expelled" as he said as much. Have you seen it?

No, I haven't seen it. Are you sure that that is what he actually said, or are you paraphrasing based on what you remember?