fact vs bible??

[jewscout]

There isn't a verse that gives the date of creation. What people do is trace back time using the geneologies listed in the Bible. That gives dates ranging from 6,000 to 10,000 years ago as the date of creation.

well actually it's 5765th year since the creation of Adam in the Jewish calander

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

well actually it's 5765th year since the creation of Adam in the Jewish calander

I've noticed that you frequently append a '' to your 'Jewish' clarifications, almost as if you're either embarrassed by them or unwilling to take them seriously. I'm curious as to what you think of the creation story and the age of the earth.

 

[Pah]

That would still only give the time since Adam and Eve were made, not the universe and planets and the creatures that lived before Adam.

The whole lot was just a few days before Adam, according to the word

 

[true blood]

The whole lot was just a few days before Adam, according to the word

According to that word, the days were like a thousand years to man. The first heavens and earths were perfect and also a massive battle occured. Definatly a larger time element opposed to the "just a few days" concept.

 

[Dinogrrl]

Exactly.

 

[Pah]

That would still only give the time since Adam and Eve were made, not the universe and planets and the creatures that lived before Adam.

The whole lot was just a few days before Adam, according to the word

According to that word, the days were like a thousand years to man. The first heavens and earths were perfect and also a massive battle occured. Definatly a larger time element opposed to the "just a few days" concept.

Let's see - after Adam, we count the years as years but before Adam we count the days as many, many years. Right! Got it! That's biblical harmony for ya!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Let's see - after Adam, we count the years as years but before Adam we count the days as many, many years. Right! Got it! That's biblical harmony for ya!

Precisely. Furthermore, this self-serving manipulation of the Hebrew language was unknown to those who wrote and maintained the scripture. Miraculously (if that word be permitted here), none of a plethora of Hebraists interpreted the days of Genesis as anything other than standard days until relatively recently, i.e., not until the pressures of science sent the less honest apologists scrambling in search of some semantic sleight-of-hand. In my opinion, those foolish enough to believe these folks deserve to be misled.

 

[Runt]

Miraculously (if that word be permitted here), none of a plethora of Hebraists interpreted the days of Genesis as anything other than standard days until relatively recently, i.e., not until the pressures of science sent the less honest apologists scrambling in search of some semantic sleight-of-hand.

Ah yes, so earlier readers of the "word" were automatically more correct in their interpretation of scripture than modern readers... simply because they looked at the texts first?

Although I'm almost positive that the Cosmic Daddy doesn't exist and the scriptures are nothing but interesting literature, I can't help but recognize the fact that I COULD be wrong (which would be rather unfortunate, since I'd probably be going straight to Hell when I die). And if I'm wrong and there really is a God (and if "truth" really is revealed in scripture) then there are only two possibilities regarding dinosaurs (and more specifically modern science, since I think this thread is really questioning whether or not science and religion can be reconcilled in Christianity and the other "religions of the book"): either the scriptures are literal, and everything science has determined about the world is WRONG (there are no dinosaurs or evolution and earth is only about 6000 years old), or the scriptures are metaphorical and there is is still room for scientific knowledge.

Which option makes more sense to you? (And no, you can't choose "atheism and the idea that scriptures are no more than literature makes the most sense to me" as that option because this is really a "what if God exists and the scriptures contain the truth" question).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ah yes, so earlier readers of the "word" were automatically more correct in their interpretation of scripture than modern readers... simply because they looked at the texts first?

No. Beyond the fact that earlier Hebrew and Aramaic speakers were more likely to be cognizant of relevant idiom and vernacular, they were also more likely correct because they were trying to understand the text as written rather than straining to coerce the text to conform to apologetic demands. Maintaining that the new Christian evangelist has finally unravelled the "true" meaning of Jewish text is as pretentious as it is preposterous - particularly since these apologists seem to find primary support among their own kind and precious little among the peer-reviewed scholars in the field.

 

[true blood]

Apologetics? :tsk: Your ego has grown too large. You are like roaring lions but you cannot bite while your roaring :woohoo: A loud, ferocious racket. So you are critics of the bible always seeking to point out your "findings". And then there are christians who simply love the word of God. But when your "findings" mean nothing to us, because we are no longer circumstanced-conditioned but rather we are God's Word-conditioned, you cry apologetics. :biglaugh: Trusting God's Word is so simple I think it angers you. The scripture says a day to God is like a thousand years to man. Plain and simple. No self serving manipulation exists in translating the verse "a day is like a thousand years". Roar all you want. It no longer disturbs us. Your misguided translation "after Adam, we count the years as years but before Adam we count the days as many, many years", depraved of spiritual understanding. The verse suggests that there is a perspective of God and a perspective of man. Through His perspective, His day is like a thousand of man's years. Before and after Adam, even now, a thousand years is like(a simile)one day unto God. The bible contains "viewpoints". Some perspectives are from God and others are from man. You will not understand the perspective from God because it is spiritually discerned. Your mind is reprobate from such potitions of understanding even if you are a peer reviewed scholar. Your apology is accepted for we are aware of your shortcomings being unbelievers. Have a good day.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Apologetics? :tsk: Your ego has grown too large.

Are you responding to Deut here? :sarcastic I'm afraid that this response doesn't make any sense at all, and does not even pretend address Deut's points.

 

[true blood]

They know who it's addressed to.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No. Beyond the fact that earlier Hebrew and Aramaic speakers were more likely to be cognizant of relevant idiom and vernacular, they were also more likely correct because they were trying to understand the text as written rather than straining to coerce the text to conform to apologetic demands. Maintaining that the new Christian evangelist has finally unravelled the "true" meaning of Jewish text is as pretentious as it is preposterous - particularly since these apologists seem to find primary support among their own kind and precious little among the peer-reviewed scholars in the field.

Very good point, Deut. It is not good interpretation to simply make up a translation or theology from translations that are not subject to peer-review. Unfortunately, in the field of biblical interpretation, schools are formed of peers that hold similar views, and entire schools review eachother from the same perspective. These schools can produce their own lexicons, theological dictionaries, and grammars. Fortunately, however, these competing schools review eachother constantly.

I am feeling the pressure in my own work from pretentious apologists who seem to find primary support among their own kind and precious little among the peer-reviewed scholars in the field. Several seminaries are controlled by people just like this, and it is producing scholaticism in many seminaries. It is a constant fight to keep these people at bay, but it is possible.

 

[Pah]

Are you responding to Deut here? :sarcastic I'm afraid that this response doesn't make any sense at all, and does not even pretend address Deut's points.

I think it's me - my color and my quote in the midst of the rant.

 

[Pah]

Apologetics? Your ego has grown too large. You are like roaring lions but you cannot bite while your roaring :woohoo: A loud, ferocious racket. So you are critics of the bible always seeking to point out your "findings". And then there are christians who simply love the word of God. But when your "findings" mean nothing to us, because we are no longer circumstanced-conditioned but rather we are God's Word-conditioned, you cry apologetics. Trusting God's Word is so simple I think it angers you. The scripture says a day to God is like a thousand years to man. Plain and simple. No self serving manipulation exists in translating the verse "a day is like a thousand years". Roar all you want. It no longer disturbs us. Your misguided translation "after Adam, we count the years as years but before Adam we count the days as many, many years", depraved of spiritual understanding. The verse suggests that there is a perspective of God and a perspective of man. Through His perspective, His day is like a thousand of man's years. Before and after Adam, even now, a thousand years is like(a simile)one day unto God. The bible contains "viewpoints". Some perspectives are from God and others are from man. You will not understand the perspective from God because it is spiritually discerned. Your mind is reprobate from such potitions of understanding even if you are a peer reviewed scholar. Your apology is accepted for we are aware of your shortcomings being unbelievers. Have a good day.

I found the reference to "a day is like a thousand years", Psalm 90, in which the New International Version labels it a prayer of Moses. It is man's writing and man's interpretation - a combination of you and Moses that defies logic and reason. :banghead3 I thought you'd like me to use a smilie too! Sorry I had to take some of yours out so mine would fit.

 

[Krunk]

so what you are al saying is that religion is flawed. and why so many differnt answers for the same question??

 

[Pah]

so what you are al saying is that religion is flawed. and why so many differnt answers for the same question??

Religion is always flawed as it is an undeniable product of man. Faith, on the other hand, is not "flawed" at the personal level.

 

[Pah]

According to that word, the days were like a thousand years to man. The first heavens and earths were perfect and also a massive battle occured. Definatly a larger time element opposed to the "just a few days" concept.

And only a total of 6000 years if you consider Psalm 90 to be inspired instead of what Moses prayed. Still not enough time there.

 

[matey]

Has anyone ever seen a dinosaur walk?
Maybe Dino's were put in the Earth by God to test the faith of His followers when people began to discover fossils of dinosaurs and all other 'prehistoric' fossils. That is, God is omniscient, and maybe He put the fossils there to test the faith of His followers when the new religion of evolution was started.

 

[Dinogrrl]

See, now, evolution isn't technically a religion :}~. Sure, some people follow it religiously.

So...if the only purpose of dinosaurs is to give support to 'the follows of the religion of evolution'...um... *confuzzled*

And yes, we can 'see' a dinosaur walk. We have plenty of footprints (the museum I'm working at actually owns two footprint sites). See, as in, a living, breathing dinosaur walking down the street, no, duh. :}~ I don't really see what that question has to do with the rest of your post.