why are there errors in the bible and yet people follow it?

[captainbryce]

Protestantism is just a offshoot of Catholicism, which is a mixture of pagan religion and Christs teaching.

I can go more in depth if needed...but it will be a lengthy boring one

Funnily enough, I actually agree with you. Which is why although I believe in Christ, I tend to reject most of the doctrines based on pagan or secular traditions.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

How exactly did you reach this conclusion? What are you basing this on? The verse in 2 Peter (which is really just piggybacking on scripture from Psalm 90:4) is not a literal declaration of how God experiences time, it is only an analogy. Nothing in that analogy ties back to the creation account in Genesis.

Well that is certainly an "interesting" take on creation. It's clear that you don't believe that the creation accounts are literal, and that's fine. But I honestly think that your interpretation requires a lot of "stretching" of the word in order to make it fit. Furthermore, there is no reason for me to believe that it was intended to have a "hidden" meaning. I don't believe that God wanted to hide his message in scripture. I think he meant for us to know what actually happened when he created the heavens and the earth.

Yes, I agree with that.

I see ZERO scriptural evidence to support this view. This 6000 years number simply does not exist in the bible because that's not what the expression "a day to the Lord is as a thousand years" means. That passage is an analogy, not an equation. Your reasoning does not follow. Beyond that, we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Earth and the Universe is much, much older than 6,000 years. Forget, evolutionary biology, geological strata, radiometric dating, astronomical measurements, and the plethora of other scientific evidence that proves how old the Earth actually is, the simple fact that we have archaeological evidence of numerous human civilizations that go back 20,000 years alone proves that the Earth is older than 6,000 years old.

Hi captainbryce,

In genesis 1, it says God created the World in 6 Days. If we take these statements literal 'day' as in 24 hours, then the Bible would be wrong according to scientific evidence.
For according to the Big Bang theory, this would not be the case. Since these different planets, stars, suns, moons were expending gradually.

If we say, this 'Day' or 'Night' are not 24 hours, but are periods, that would contradict with genesis, for in genesis it is written 1:5



"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Meaning genesis is defining the term 'Day' in relationship with 'Light, and 'Night' in relationship with 'darkness'.

so, I think to be fair neither idea works.


But what I was talking about and I feel I need to expand on it, is that, the fact is Bible describes its accounts starting from the days of Adam, and not before Adam.

In this sense, the world that existed before Adam was considered Old World, in comparison to the World that started with Adam. For those who lived before Adam were very primitive, and this is a fact well established by scientific evidences.

Therefore Bible does not talk about the details of the old world, and simply states that: "In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth."


Therefore according to this terminology that the Days of Adam, represents start of a new world, which started after the End days of the older world, likewise, the World that started with the Days of Adam, would have an 'End'. The Scripture refers to this as 'the Last Days', or the End of World.
The Meaning is again, End of the World that had started with Adam, and start of a New World, that was to appear at the End times. Biblical prophecies has stated that, when the End time comes, He will make everything 'New":
"Behold, I am making all things new." Rev. 21:5

This is a Prophecy of the coming of a New World after the World that started with Adam was to End.


Having said all these, the fact is, starting from the end of 19th century, the World has indeed become a new world, in comparison with the world before it.
A new era started in terms of the ways of life, communications, travelling, technology, even languages that we speak that is like a totally new world.
The end of 19th century is 6000 years after days of Adam.

So, in this sense, each day of the six days as the Bible stated is 1000 years, corresponds to 6000 years. so, for example in Day 5 it refers to creation of the beasts. In many instances the Bible refers to people as beasts. So, in this sense the people of the past as a general in comparison with people of our new time, were as primitive as beasts. On the six day, 'human' is finally created, meaning that finally after 6000 years of successive revelations, that beast would start to be advanced and mature enough to be called human. This was done though guidance from God that trained mankind, and each Day of genesis symbolically represents guidance of God with terms such as 'light', 'water', 'tree with fruit'. None of these terms are any stretch, for you can find exact same words and terminologies in Bible with symbolic meanings that corresponds with the guidance and word of God.

So, Genesis 1, can be thought of as an overview of all the Revelations and historical accounts that are described in Hebrew Scriptures and new testament. Much like a Book that gives a Summary of all its chapters in the first chapter as an introduction.

And I can show at least 2 other ways from Bible to calculate that the time of the End corresponds to the end of 19th century.

 

[sojourner]

That's an awful lot of theological gymnastics to foist upon very ancient texts, just so that they'll "match up" with science. Why can't we just be honest and treat them for what they are: Mythic and theological stories of our origins?

 

[Skwim]

Yes: it's telling you that the comment was worthless.

And we have a winner!

I knew I was letting myself in for just such a response, so thank you for not disappointing, and be proud to be the first to jump on it.

 

[Skwim]

However, since you asked and you seem to want it spelled out for you beyond your own preconceived assumptions, I will "tell" you that I ignored it because A) I plainly disagree with it on the count that it is assumption dependent, factually incorrect, and relies upon several ingrained fallacies, and B) pointing out why you are wrong in my opinion would just lead to an religious argument (which is ultimately pointless).

I don't believe I asked anything.

In part, absolutely. Didn't catch you sleeping did I.

Perhaps, but what facts in particular did I get wrong?

Ingrained, you say. Hmmmm. Just what fallacies are these, CB?

Your post makes it clear that you've already made up your mind, and that no other opinion on the matter would even be considered. So there was no point in responding to it.

No! No! Please, I want to know what facts I got wrong and what fallacies I committed. :help:

Rather than formulate a subjective opinion about why I think the bible is wrong or right, or why other people who I've never met before may or may not follow it, I'd rather focus on debating the actual issue, which is the content of the bible, and determining whether or not it is actually erroneous.

But that isn't the "actual issue." The "actual issue" as Dani asked in the OP is "why are there errors in the bible and yet people follow it?" The title presents the errors in the Bible as a given, and then asks why people still follow it. Gotta pay attention, CB.

If it is erroneous, then we should point out specific examples of the errors, and determine whether or not these can answered. If they can, then the entire premise of the OP's question is flawed to begin with. If some can and others cannot, then the OP's question may have some validity (with multiple explanations). If none of them can, then OP's question is perfectly valid and your assumptions about other people should perhaps be given more weight than they currently have as it stands.

And Dani did just that.

Gen 1:14-18 claims that God made the sun on the 4th "day". How can there be three "days" before the sun even exists?
Gen 1:11;12 claims that plant life was created before the sun. How can there be plants without any sun?
​

Ball's in your court.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

That's an awful lot of theological gymnastics to foist upon very ancient texts, just so that they'll "match up" with science. Why can't we just be honest and treat them for what they are: Mythic and theological stories of our origins?

There are different ways to look at Bible. we might be able to summarize it:

1) The Book is inspired by God, and its words must be interpreted literally, and if Bible and science contradict, we choose Bible and declare science to be wrong, no matter how much scientific evidence are out there.

2) The Book is not inspired by God. Those who wrote it, were liars, and Bible is useless.

3) The Book is not inspired by God, but it is a Mythology, and we can learn from it ethically and people just took it too serious, but nothing divine is about it.

4) The Book is inspired by God, and contains Figurative verses that are signs for important events, and the stories of the Book are veiled unless it is read with spiritual eye, and interpreted symbolically. Since the Book is inspired by God, it would not contradict with science, unless we misinterpret it.


I suppose your position is close to (3), mine is (4).

 

[sojourner]

There are different ways to look at Bible. we might be able to summarize it:

1) The Book is inspired by God, and its words must be interpreted literally, and if Bible and science contradict, we choose Bible and declare science to be wrong, no matter how much scientific evidence are out there.

2) The Book is not inspired by God. Those who wrote it, were liars, and Bible is useless.

3) The Book is not inspired by God, but it is a Mythology, and we can learn from it ethically and people just took it too serious, but nothing divine is about it.

4) The Book is inspired by God, and contains Figurative verses that are signs for important events, and the stories of the Book are veiled unless it is read with spiritual eye, and interpreted symbolically. Since the Book is inspired by God, it would not contradict with science, unless we misinterpret it.


I suppose your position is close to (3), mine is (4).

I think you're selling short the wide diversity of human perception, because there are more ways than that to look at the bible.

I don't think there's anything more "veiled" than our inability to read from the stance of those who wrote the texts. God works through flawed human agency, and sometimes we get it scientifically wrong. That's OK -- this isn't a science text, it's a theological tradition. It doesn't always have to "jive."

 

[captainbryce]

Hi captainbryce,

In genesis 1, it says God created the World in 6 Days. If we take these statements literal 'day' as in 24 hours, then the Bible would be wrong according to scientific evidence.

Well the idea does work if you avoid some of the faulty assumptions in your reasoning. Your started out from the presumption that the word "day" (referring to the creation days) means 24 hours. The problem is, there is nothing is scripture that defines that day as 24 hours. There are many LITERAL meanings of the word "day" (yom) in Hebrew. Just because the word day is used, does not denote that a 24 hour period of time is being referenced. In fact, the FIRST usage of the word day in the bible does NOT mean 24 hours.

Genesis 1:4-5
4 And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.”

In this passage, day does NOT mean 24 hours, it means the period of time encompassing daylight. At best, it would refer to 12 hours (because unless you're in Alaska during the equinox, there is no place in the world where "day" lasts for 24 straight hours). So that's one usage right there that doesn't refer to 24 hours.

Genesis 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

The second usage of the word day in Genesis 2 also does NOT mean 24 hours. It refers to an "age" (ie: the period of time from when God began creating to when he rested). This passage refers back to the entire 6 day period of creation (which is obviously longer than 24 hours). So that's a second usage of the word day that means something more than 24 hours.

Genesis 2:17 (King James Version)
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Here is another usage of the word day that implies something other than 24 hours. Adam is warned not to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge, or else he would die in that day. He did eat of the fruit of course, but he DIDN'T die that day.

Genesis 5:5
Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

For according to the Big Bang theory, this would not be the case. Since these different planets, stars, suns, moons were expending gradually.

If we say, this 'Day' or 'Night' are not 24 hours, but are periods, that would contradict with genesis, for in genesis it is written 1:5

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Meaning genesis is defining the term 'Day' in relationship with 'Light, and 'Night' in relationship with 'darkness'.

so, I think to be fair neither idea works.

Well, the fact is, it DOESN'T' contradict Genesis because I have just provided three usages of the word day from the book of Genesis alone that do not denote a 24 hour period of time, but something much longer (depending on their context). So the idea that "day" always refers to 24 periods of time is just plain wrong! Based on this (and numerous other scriptural reasons) I believe that the creation days were longer than 24 hours. And you can't say that I'm not taking it literally, because there are multiple, LITERAL definitions of the word day (even in English).

But what I was talking about and I feel I need to expand on it, is that, the fact is Bible describes its accounts starting from the days of Adam, and not before Adam.

No, actually it describes creation from "the beginning". God does many things before creating Adam and this is recorded in Genesis.

In this sense, the world that existed before Adam was considered Old World, in comparison to the World that started with Adam. For those who lived before Adam were very primitive, and this is a fact well established by scientific evidences.

Therefore Bible does not talk about the details of the old world, and simply states that: "In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth."

Then what is your biblical justification for the assumption that there were "others" who lived before Adam. You accused me of contradicting scriptures, but you just introduced an idea that is totally against scripture. The bible (Genesis 1 and 2) indicates that Adam and Eve were the first people. So who are these other primitives that you are talking about?

Therefore according to this terminology that the Days of Adam, represents start of a new world, which started after the End days of the older world, likewise, the World that started with the Days of Adam, would have an 'End'. The Scripture refers to this as 'the Last Days', or the End of World.

Actually, the scripture refers to the Last Days in reference to the period before the end of our world. But Adam's world had already ended with Noah's flood. God destroyed the entire world (all mankind was destroyed except for those in the Ark). More to the point, scripture does NOT reference this supposed "old world" with primitive people before Adam that you are talking about. So where are you getting this idea from?

Biblical prophecies has stated that, when the End time comes, He will make everything 'New":
"Behold, I am making all things new." Rev. 21:5

This is a Prophecy of the coming of a New World after the World that started with Adam was to End.

I think it's actually a reference to the world that Started with Noah. But at this point we are splitting hairs. Other than some small details in interpretation, I largely agree with you on this point. But I fail to see how this justifies the notion that there were other humans BEFORE Adam and Eve.

Having said all these, the fact is, starting from the end of 19th century, the World has indeed become a new world, in comparison with the world before it.
A new era started in terms of the ways of life, communications, travelling, technology, even languages that we speak that is like a totally new world.
The end of 19th century is 6000 years after days of Adam.

I don't see why this is relevant. "New World" can be defined in any number of ways! There is nothing significant about the end of the 19th century that might indicate that it is the start of a new world anymore than any other period of time. That's just some arbitrary date that you are choosing to subtract 6000 years from! But the new world that God establishes (mentioned in Revelation) doesn't happen until after final judgement.

So, in this sense, each day of the six days as the Bible stated is 1000 years, corresponds to 6000 years.

But there is still no biblical evidence for this and there is much evidence that directly contradicts it. I don't see your interpretation being justifiable by scripture, or science.

so, for example in Day 5 it refers to creation of the beasts. In many instances the Bible refers to people as beasts.

Even IF that was true (which I doubt, and I'd like to invite you to provide some reference to that if you can), in Genesis 1, from the context we can easily tell that the "beasts" mentioned were animals, not humans. Only older translations of the bible use the word "beast". More modern translations render it "wild animals", not primitive people.

And I can show at least 2 other ways from Bible to calculate that the time of the End corresponds to the end of 19th century.

With all due respect, I don't think that you can. You haven't even provided a reasonable way to deduce 6,000 years from your first example! :sorry1:

 

[captainbryce]

That's an awful lot of theological gymnastics to foist upon very ancient texts, just so that they'll "match up" with science. Why can't we just be honest and treat them for what they are: Mythic and theological stories of our origins?

I assume you are referring to InvestigateTruth's last post. But the problem is, it DOESN'T match up with science! Science says that humans evolved from apes that existed millions of years ago. InvestigateTruth is saying that God created these human-like apes only thousands of years ago, then created modern humans 1,000 years after that. In addition to bastardizing scripture, his idea is no more consistent with science than yours is!

 

[captainbryce]

I don't believe I asked anything.

I believe YOU DID! And I believe that anyone else on this thread would believe that you did as well. Because even though you didn't phrase your question in the form of a question, the fact that you felt the need to comment on the lack of replies to your rant essentially means that you didn't have to ask! It's called reading between the lines. You clearly wanted to know why you didn't get a response to your rant, and felt that the "safest" way for you to make that point would be to make a sarcastic assumption about how we all took your comment. We got it. Message received! :yes:

In part, absolutely. Didn't catch you sleeping did I.

Perhaps, but what facts in particular did I get wrong?

Ingrained, you say. Hmmmm. Just what fallacies are these, CB?

Did you miss the part where I very clearly said that getting into a religious argument was with you was not my MO. Forgetting the fact that I'm pretty sure it would break the rules of this forum, what possible good could come from you and I (who clearly have different spiritual views) to hijack this thread duke it out? What is your purpose here exactly? If you want to start your own thread where you highlight your assumptions about other people's beliefs in the hopes that other people will try to justify themselves to you, you're welcome to do that (and then see how many responses you get)! I'm not interested. That's not why I come here!

And Dani did just that.

Gen 1:14-18 claims that God made the sun on the 4th "day". How can there be three "days" before the sun even exists?
Gen 1:11;12 claims that plant life was created before the sun. How can there be plants without any sun?
​

Ball's in your court.

And I've taken that ball and ran with it!

I already answered this question in post #47. Are you not paying attention? Now the ball is in your court, or Dani's court (or in anyone's court who wants to actually respond to the fact that this idea is a based on a fallacy)

 

[danieldemol]

That's an awful lot of theological gymnastics to foist upon very ancient texts, just so that they'll "match up" with science. Why can't we just be honest and treat them for what they are: Mythic and theological stories of our origins?

What do you mean when you describe them as mythic? If you mean false or non-factual, i think it can be demonstrated from the texts that they were not intended to be factual.

The people of Moses time, although they may not have understood the roundness and rotation of the earth, nontheless would have understood that the sun is the cause of daylight (after all the Egyptian's believed that the day was caused by one of their gods carrying a torch or something on his boat across the sky). The story of Genesis indicates that the authors of the story were aware that the sun is the cause of daylight, for in Genesis 1:16 we find that it states, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night". Now we must ask ourselves the question, if the authors of genesis knew it was factual that daylight came from the sun, and wrote effectively that the sun was created on the third daylight period, is it reasonable to assume that this/these author/(s) believed the Genesis story to be a factual story?

In my opinion it is clear that right from the beginning, the creation story was not intended to be a factual story, could it then have had allegorical meaning right from (to use a pun) the beginning?

 

[danieldemol]

I assume you are referring to InvestigateTruth's last post. But the problem is, it DOESN'T match up with science! Science says that humans evolved from apes that existed millions of years ago. InvestigateTruth is saying that God created these human-like apes only thousands of years ago, then created modern humans 1,000 years after that. In addition to bastardizing scripture, his idea is no more consistent with science than yours is!

I personally reckon your listening skills are due for some practice if that is what you got out of Investigate Truth's posts.

Investigate Truth (I.T) is saying the time of Adam was 6000 years ago, but refuting that Adam was the first man. Since Adam was not the first man, I.T is essentially refuting the idea that the story of Adam tells us anything about the physical creation of humanity.

 

[outhouse]

The bible was not written to be perfect, it is supposed to have errors and contradictions, mythology and fiction.

BUT you don't fix the bible, it fixes you!

 

[Skwim]

I believe YOU DID! And I believe that anyone else on this thread would believe that you did as well. Because even though you didn't phrase your question in the form of a question, the fact that you felt the need to comment on the lack of replies to your rant essentially means that you didn't have to ask! It's called reading between the lines. You clearly wanted to know why you didn't get a response to your rant, and felt that the "safest" way for you to make that point would be to make a sarcastic assumption about how we all took your comment. We got it. Message received!

Excuse me for thinking you knew what a question is. My mistake. FYI, expecting a reply is NOT, I repeat NOT, the same as asking a question. Ask your teacher.

Did you miss the part where I very clearly said that getting into a religious argument was with you was not my MO.

Nope, which is why I haven't brought it up to you, only what you've said in post 93. If you can't follow along, fine, but don't assume no one else can either.

Forgetting the fact that I'm pretty sure it would break the rules of this forum, what possible good could come from you and I (who clearly have different spiritual views) to hijack this thread duke it out? What is your purpose here exactly? If you want to start your own thread where you highlight your assumptions about other people's beliefs in the hopes that other people will try to justify themselves to you, you're welcome to do that (and then see how many responses you get)! I'm not interested. That's not why I come here!

Said the pot to the kettle when it expanded the discussion by asserting the kettle . . .

1) asked something

2) made an assumption

3) stated incorrect facts

4) and relied on several ingrained fallacies,
​

No, you didn't want to hijack the thread at all. You just wanted to put your 2 cents in and then run for the hills.

Yet again in post 110, instead of letting the issue drop so as not to take the thread off topic, you continue to do just that. Proclaiming, of course, this is just what you don't intend to do.

And recall CB, it was you who opened the one-on-one between us (see post 93), not me.

I already answered this question in post #47. Are you not paying attention?

I did, in fact see it. However, when you said,

" If none of them can, then OP's question is perfectly valid and your assumptions about other people should perhaps be given more weight than they currently have as it stands."
​

I could only conclude that you forgot you had already replied. Why else would you make such an odd remark?

In any case, it hasn't escaped me that you've ignored my most salient remark.

Rather than formulate a subjective opinion about why I think the bible is wrong or right, or why other people who I've never met before may or may not follow it, I'd rather focus on debating the actual issue, which is the content of the bible, and determining whether or not it is actually erroneous.

But that isn't the "actual issue." The "actual issue" as Dani asked in the OP is "why are there errors in the bible and yet people follow it?" The title presents the errors in the Bible as a given, and then asks why people still follow it. Gotta pay attention, CB.

So, how about it, what ya got to say about people who follow the Bible despite its errors? THE THREAD TOPIC.

Want to join the conversation or simply stick to your own: "There ain't no errors in the Bible and I'll prove it"?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I assume you are referring to InvestigateTruth's last post. But the problem is, it DOESN'T match up with science! Science says that humans evolved from apes that existed millions of years ago. InvestigateTruth is saying that God created these human-like apes only thousands of years ago, then created modern humans 1,000 years after that. In addition to bastardizing scripture, his idea is no more consistent with science than yours is!

Did you even read my post? Which part of it said "God created these human-like apes only thousands of years ago"?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well the idea does work if you avoid some of the faulty assumptions in your reasoning. Your started out from the presumption that the word "day" (referring to the creation days) means 24 hours. The problem is, there is nothing is scripture that defines that day as 24 hours. There are many LITERAL meanings of the word "day" (yom) in Hebrew. Just because the word day is used, does not denote that a 24 hour period of time is being referenced. In fact, the FIRST usage of the word day in the bible does NOT mean 24 hours.

On the contrary. I already said a Day as in 24 hours is not intended!
Like I referred to the verse in Peter, a Day for this case is 1000 years, as is written in NT.
We cannot assume, that a Day as 1000 years is an analogy, unless you have a good reason, which I don't see.

Genesis 1:4-5
4 And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.”

In this passage, day does NOT mean 24 hours, it means the period of time encompassing daylight. At best, it would refer to 12 hours (because unless you're in Alaska during the equinox, there is no place in the world where "day" lasts for 24 straight hours). So that's one usage right there that doesn't refer to 24 hours.

It's neither 12 nor 24 hrs.

Both is against science. Religion and Science must agree. How can science whose source is God, be different than religion? If a Religion is against Science, the Religion is False. Simple as that.

Genesis 5:5
Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

Well, the fact is, it DOESN'T' contradict Genesis because I have just provided three usages of the word day from the book of Genesis alone that do not denote a 24 hour period of time, but something much longer (depending on their context). So the idea that "day" always refers to 24 periods of time is just plain wrong! Based on this (and numerous other scriptural reasons) I believe that the creation days were longer than 24 hours. And you can't say that I'm not taking it literally, because there are multiple, LITERAL definitions of the word day (even in English).

What we should consider is the verse in Gen 1:5. No one other than Bible can define what is intended by Day and Night in Genesis.

The Book itself is defining 'Light' means 'Day'. Night means Darkness:

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Gen 1:5


The Day is a Period that guidance is on earth as Light of Guidance. Night is the period of the absence of the Divine Prophet. As Jesus said:


"As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world." John 9:4-5

Here some Other examples:

Whenever a Divine Prophet appeares, that is like appearance of the Sun in the Morning of Revelation:

"Jesus' appearance was transformed so that his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as light." Matt. 17:2

"When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the covenant law in his hands, he was not aware that his face was radiant because he had spoken with the LORD." Exodus 34:29

In Genesis it is said: "And the evening and the morning were the first day."
The terms 'Morning' and 'Evening' are reference to coming of Divine Prophets and Leaving. During which is 'a Day of revelation' (Light o guidance)

Then what is your biblical justification for the assumption that there were "others" who lived before Adam. You accused me of contradicting scriptures, but you just introduced an idea that is totally against scripture. The bible (Genesis 1 and 2) indicates that Adam and Eve were the first people. So who are these other primitives that you are talking about?

The Bible is not a science Book to talk about physical creation or people lived before Adam. Religion has its own role, science its own role.
The Bible chooses to 'look' at a cycle of humanity from the Days of Adam.

But as science has proved, there were people living before Adam thousands and thousands years before.

Actually, the scripture refers to the Last Days in reference to the period before the end of our world.

That's True.

But Adam's world had already ended with Noah's flood.

It did not ended. It was perished, in a spiritual sense.

"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store" 2 Peter

The Noah story is also Figurative. The 'Ark' is the symbol of covenant and faith. Those who entered it were saved. Different pairs of animals symbolized, different tribes and sects. Those who perished, were among the ones that did not enter the Faith of God and died 'Spiritually'. (Those who were perishing)

God destroyed the entire world (all mankind was destroyed except for those in the Ark). More to the point, scripture does NOT reference this supposed "old world" with primitive people before Adam that you are talking about. So where are you getting this idea from?

The idea is in Science. the Primitive people lived thousands of years before Adam. But the Bible does not talk about them, their generations, prophets, as it was totally a different human cycle, with its own ways of life. Bible is not a science Book to talk about everything. It talks about revelations of God starting from the Days of Adam. Because it considers Adam, as a start of a Human Cycle, From a spiritual and civilization point of view (Not physical).

I don't see why this is relevant. "New World" can be defined in any number of ways! There is nothing significant about the end of the 19th century that might indicate that it is the start of a new world anymore than any other period of time. That's just some arbitrary date that you are choosing to subtract 6000 years from! But the new world that God establishes (mentioned in Revelation) doesn't happen until after final judgement.

That's true. But in our view the Final Judgement already happened in 1844.

http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/time.htm

Even IF that was true (which I doubt, and I'd like to invite you to provide some reference to that if you can), in Genesis 1, from the context we can easily tell that the "beasts" mentioned were animals, not humans. Only older translations of the bible use the word "beast". More modern translations render it "wild animals", not primitive people.

There are several examples in Bible that Bible uses animals as analogy for people. For example one of the Figurative Signs regarding the Prophecies of coming of Messiah was the beasts become peaceful when He comes. In our view, those beasts were different sects and tribes who were in conflict with each other before Jesus, and later they were peaceful when they were effected by revelation of Jesus.

"But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves." Jude 11:10

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The bible was not written to be perfect, it is supposed to have errors, ...

Huh ?

 

[Moishe3rd]

1. Astronomy: First we deal with Astronomy.The Bible speaks about the creation of the universe. In the beginning, 1st Book, Book of Genesis, 1st Ch., it is mentioned - It says… ‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, in six days and talks about a evening and a morning, referring to a 24 - hour day. Today scientists tell us, that the universe cannot be created in a 24 hour period of six days.

if your going to argue the Quran also says six days : "Your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days and then settled Himself firmly on the Throne... (Qur'an, 7:54)

the word used is "ayyamin" meaning (long) periods and NOT 24 hour days like the Bible has it mentioned..


Gen 1:14-18 claims that God made the sun on the 4th "day". How can there be three "days" before the sun even exists?
Gen 1:11;12 claims that plant life was created before the sun. How can there be plants without any sun?

these are just a very few of the errors.. there are many more

and if ur going to say that the Bible is not a science book? well dont you think it should be consistant with science because its GODS words? or given by God?

The Hebrew "Yom Echad" means One Day. "Yom sheni" means Second Day.
The Hebrew continues in this fashion.
If G-d had written "the First Day," it would have been written "Hayom Harishon."
"The Second Day," would have been written "Hayom Hasheni."
Since the Torah was given on Mt. Sinai, there is NO authoritative Torah scholar who has claimed that the "Yom" of Bereishis (Genesis) is a literal 24 hour day.
It's not.
What Time period a "Yom" represents in Bereishis has been the source of much discussion and commentary for over 3,000 years.
Tehillim (Psalms) 90 gives a clue:

"4. A thousand years are in Your eyes like yesterday that has passed, like a watch of the night.
5. The stream of their life is as but a slumber; in the morning they are like grass that sprouts anew.
6. In the morning it thrives and sprouts anew; in the evening it withers and dries."

G-d Created Time.
And, Man's Time is not G-d's Time.
A thousand years for Man may be a "Day" for G-d.
Or, a watch in the night (4 hours) may be like a "Day" for G-d.
Or, a Man's Lifetime may be like a "Day" for G-d.
G-d's Time is not Man's Time.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The Hebrew "Yom Echad" means One Day. "Yom sheni" means Second Day.
The Hebrew continues in this fashion.
If G-d had written "the First Day," it would have been written "Hayom Harishon."
"The Second Day," would have been written "Hayom Hasheni."
Since the Torah was given on Mt. Sinai, there is NO authoritative Torah scholar who has claimed that the "Yom" of Bereishis (Genesis) is a literal 24 hour day.
It's not.
What Time period a "Yom" represents in Bereishis has been the source of much discussion and commentary for over 3,000 years.
Tehillim (Psalms) 90 gives a clue:

"4. A thousand years are in Your eyes like yesterday that has passed, like a watch of the night.
5. The stream of their life is as but a slumber; in the morning they are like grass that sprouts anew.
6. In the morning it thrives and sprouts anew; in the evening it withers and dries."

G-d Created Time.
And, Man's Time is not G-d's Time.
A thousand years for Man may be a "Day" for G-d.
Or, a watch in the night (4 hours) may be like a "Day" for G-d.
Or, a Man's Lifetime may be like a "Day" for G-d.
G-d's Time is not Man's Time.

But Gods time can be explained in mans time. For God such vagueness in the meaning as something as a day would make no sense. God could have given the exact amount of time. This is what people use to say God is outside of time but operates within time. So even if mans time isn't Gods time, it's mans time that is being impacted in creation.

 

[Moishe3rd]

But Gods time can be explained in mans time. For God such vagueness in the meaning as something as a day would make no sense.

As G-d is far greater and far much beyond what Man can comprehend in This World, why do you think "it makes no sense.
G-d is Creator of the Universe; of All and Everything; of All Life; and Man; and G-d relates to each individual atom, not to mention Man, on a deeply personal level.
Why would you think that G-d would conform to your limited understanding of time?
That actually makes no sense.

God could have given the exact amount of time. This is what people use to say God is outside of time but operates within time. So even if mans time isn't Gods time, it's mans time that is being impacted in creation.

Why?
G-d is describing the Creation of All and Everything, trying to put what is incomprehensible into words to which Man can relate.
Why would G-d not use all of the emotional and intellectual tools of Man to describe what can only be told in allegory; in psychological parables; in esoteric wisdom?
Do you view G-d as some high school science teacher? Should G-d be hired or fired based on how well the slowest student understands the equations?
I would say not.
There is nothing in any religion that I know of that impoverishes G-d to the level of a computer; a Reciter of facts and figures who is evaluated on whether or not the readers pass the test...
Most religions I know of place G-d as the Father; He who loves His children; Mankind; with an infinite love and whose Purpose is that ALL human beings, no matter what their emotional or intellectual or physical capabilities are, should grow closer to G-d's Love and His Understanding.

G-d purposely speaks to Man's Heart and Soul as that is everyone's common denominator...