Littletoe
Genesis is only one of 66 books, and one that was likely a compilation of earlier works, anyhow. Your thread title disparages all 66.
Yeah Little Toe, but as I believe I was trying to point out, the idea that God would allow a book carrying a message as important as you claim it is to be so flawed when it is meant to be describing man's early history is ludicrous.
If you got your car manaual out, and it told you that the car ran on fairy dust and you were able to prove that this was not so, how much trust would you have in the rest of the manual? Would you consider the manufacturer to be wise or silly.
We are not talking about typos here, we are talking about things that did not happen presented as fact. What kind of god uses a book stuffed with lies to communicate his messge to mankind?
hooberus
I love your links, they are just what I need on a Monday morning. Here's a particularly wonderful quote from that web site;
only 106 weighed more than ten tons when fully grown
It is talking about dinosaurs here, gentle reader. Let us hope that none got horny; I think 30cm of wood would not be very resistant to enthusiastic brachisaur copulation.
So, howcome, if dinosaurs were on the Ark, we can not find any dinosaurs in strata that is dated to after the Biblical time frame for the Flood?
If we assume for the sake of the Creationist argument that all forms of dating that prove commonly accepted evolutionary and geological time scales are wrong, then how come we do not find dinsaur bones in strata with other animals that were on the Ark?
If the Flood happened in the time frame given by the Bible, then how come there were trees standing that apparently didn't suffer any ill effect after being submurged for so long? We know this as we have ring samples taken from trees that, just by ring count overlap they have with trees standing, are obviously from that time frame.
frankiespeaking:
As rem points out, I'm having a laugh at the expense of those who DO take it as a literal account.
I'm also having a laugh at people who will accept the bits of the Bible they know are false as allegory/etc. (rather than Bronze-age understandings of the world), but are equally happy to accept things that cannot be proved false are by assumption true; as I have pointed out, a god allowing a book with such an important message to be full of so much rubbish compromises the believability of the rest, which is illogical.
If god would use a mysterious mode of communication for a prophecy (like Revelation), where the meaning is hidden until the right time comes for interpretation (why else all the bollocks), then why did god not have the Genesis account deliverde in a similar fashion that when viewed with modern science would show the writers had access to information it was impossible for them to know at that time?
If god really wants people to believe, then that would be a good way; say that Genesis said:
"And god spun from the dust of the void a star, and round that star he span from the dust of the void planets, falling ever inwards to the star but never reaching it . And god saw the light of the star reach the third planet, and he watched and sang, sang a song that made the energy of the star falling on the thiord planet blossom into life. And god continued to sing, and the life that spranfg forth at first was tiny and simple, but over time grew intricate in design and multitudinous. Finally god sang the song of men, and some animals looked to the skies for the first time with eyes not of beats, but of men, and they saw the beauty that god had wrought and praised him, as he revealed himself to them."
If that was in the first chapter of Genesis, then I'd believe it was inspired. But no, the Bible in general is just what you'd expect; a flawed historical account of a people with added made-up bits.
