by donkey 85 Replies latest jw friends
A Christian,
I cannot help you. Your beliefs require even more faith than people who follow the English Bible. You are polite and intelligent but I can see we won't get anywhere. I suggest you look at the situation and ask yourself why God made it so difficult to follow him since we cannot even take his holy book at face value.
We must remember that the world of the Bible writers was a much smaller world than our world today. Their part of the earth was then for them "the whole world." We should also accept the possibility that Bible writers may, at times, have used larger than life expressions, just as we often do today. We often use figures of speech such as, "This book weighs a ton," or "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse." This common form of speech is called hyperbole. It is certainly possible that it may, at times, also have been used by Bible writers. When we use such exaggerated figures of speech for dramatic impact we are being neither inaccurate nor dishonest. The same can be said for the writers of Scripture.
Or maybe they were "exaggerrating" the whole thing, and were creating an original piece of literature to explore various themes like good and evil, family, and the nature of civilization using "larger than life" plot devices, just as we often do today, as in the likes of Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings.
How many times can you fall back on "what the writer really meant by this expression was this," and "even though the Bible says 'everything everywhere' it means 'one thing a few places'" without realizing each time you do so another piece of the Bible's credibility crumbles away? I was like you once, trying desperately to convince myself of the Bible unerring truthfullness. But while it takes a blizzard of "maybe-the-writer-meant-thises" to defend the Bible's discrepencies against scientific fact, it takes only two words to clear scientific fact from a laundry list of Biblical exemptions:
It's fiction.
The definitions are very important,,they explain where science is at with special reguard to what we call sometimes physical laws.
Donkey, You wrote: I cannot help you. I was not asking for your help. And I don't think I need it. Maybe I have rained on your parade here. The point of this thread seems to have been to prove that the Bible can not be true, since its chronology of Adam's creation and its record of events such as Noah's Flood and the confusion of languages at Babel are contradicted by science. However, I believe I have shown that the only thing here that is in conflict with science is a fundamentalist Christian's understanding of some portions of the Bible, not the Bible itself. . You wrote: Your beliefs require even more faith than people who follow the English Bible. I follow the English Bible. I read several versions. You may want to do the same. You can read the New American Standard Bible to find that the word "land" is used often in the Genesis flood account rather than "earth" to indicate that the flood covered the land of Noah, not our whole planet. You wrote: You are polite and intelligent but I can see we won't get anywhere. By that I take it that you mean you realize that an intelligent, well informed person is not going to buy into uninformed Bible bashing. You wrote: I suggest you look at the situation and ask yourself why God made it so difficult to follow him since we cannot even take his holy book at face value. I don't find it that difficult to follow Him. I've never met anyone else who has, anyone who was really willing to do so anyway. So far as not being able to take what the Bible says at face value, I don't see the problem. Maybe you think God should have made sure the Bible was written in a way that any five year old could easily, properly, and fully understand everything in it without any help from anyone else. That may be your opinion. But God chose to do things another way. For the Bible itself clearly indicates that it was deliberately written in a way that would allow those who are looking for reasons to find fault plenty of opportunity to do so. Of course, it was also written in a way in that would allow those truly seeking God plenty of opportunity to find Him.(Matt. 13:11-16) The Bible tells us that God knew some people would need help understanding some of its contents. Because of this we are told, "When Christ ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men. .. It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers." (Eph. 4:8,11) These things being so, I don't believe anyone has ever had trouble following Christ because they couldn't "take his holy book at face value," at least not anyone who was truly desiring to follow Christ. For the Bible tells us that God has always provided help to such people. Just as I have here answered your questions pertaining to Bible chronology apparently being in conflict with DNA evidence of the true age of the human race. So, if you are truly willing to follow the God of the Bible but are merely having difficulty doing so because you have not been able to "take his holy book at face value," you should now be able to follow God. Or, if you prefer, you can continue to bash the Bible as being "too difficult to understand," even though you have now been given all the help you need to understand the parts which troubled you.
Achristian,
Of course, it was also written in a way in that would allow those truly seeking God plenty of opportunity to find Him.(Matt. 13:11-16) The
That is a very heavy mind control device which condems those that don't get the sense of these teachings as some type of morally deficiant person.
Delta,
Something else interesting about DNA, not too long ago they found a gene in human DNA which scientist believe are the cause of our religious feelings, and that every human has this gene.
I don't think that is possible,,religious feelings are not something you can identify in DNA because there is no way to be certain so this must be only highly speculative
Doesn't it say somewhere in the bible that God layed a sort of religious feeling in all men? This sounds pretty accurate. In my opinion DNA doesnt destroy my believe, on the contrary, it encourages it!
We conclude all men have religious feeling because we have become intelligent enough to display it and since we are men with similar likes and dislikes. We also erroneously conclude that animals who see things different than us and have different concepts that may or may not be verbalize or display overt actions that give evidence of the human concept of religious feelings,,because our communication with them and understanding of them is often limited,,, unless we can move into the consciousness of these animals,,, we have no idea if they are spiritual or have religious feeling.
By that I take it that you mean you realize that an intelligent, well informed person is not going to buy into uninformed Bible bashing
Since you don't believe the bible and what it says there is just no point talking about it with you.
According to your version (I am sure you will wordsmith me up the wazoo here):
By the way, I was complimenting you when I called you intelligent. I also happen to know many Islamic folk possibly much more intelligent than yourself and their belief system is also screwy so please don't take my words to mean anything other than a simple compliment as you tried to do. So to put it more bluntly: I don't see any need to waste my time on someone who doesn't believe the bible but claims to believe it. Good luck.
aChristian:
Which of these are literal and which are figurative? How is it possible to tell:
God created the world in six days, and rested on the seventh.
The sky is an expanse of water above the earth (1:6-8)
The earth and plant life were created before the sun, moon and stars (1:14-19)
No plants grew before God created Adam [contradicts chapter 1] (Gen 2:5)
Adam was made from dust, and God breathed life into him. (2:7)
God placed Adam in the garden of Eden (2:8-15)
God then formed animals from dust and had Adam name them all [contradicts chapter 1] (2:19.20)
God made Eve out of Adam's rib (2:21-23)
A talking snake convinced Eve to eat from a forbidden tree; this fruit made her wise and caused God to expel them from the garden of Eden. (3:1-24)
God cursed the talking snake to crawl on its belly (3:14)
---
aChristian's mental gymnastics aside, it's clear to most reasonable observers that the Genesis account is simply the mythology of the Hebrews, no more inspired than that of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks or Romans. It is clearly meant to be read as a literal account, and it is only its utter absurdity that makes such a reading impossible.
Back to the original point of the thread: Mitochondrial DNA suggest that our most recent common matrilineal ancestress ("Mitochondrial Eve") lived between 150,000 and 250,000 years ago. For the Genesis account to be literally true would require a mutation rate 25 - 40 times that which is observed. Ironically, to be a creationist, one would have to believe in a much faster rate of evolution than any biologist would believe.
Donkey, You wrote: Since you don't believe the bible and what it says there is just no point talking about it with you. Of course you know I will object to that statement. I believe every word of the Bible. Just because I don't understand some parts of the Bible in exactly the same way you do, or in exactly the same way a fundamentalist Christian does, or just because I don't understand every passage of the Bible in the simplest way possible, does not mean I do not believe the Bible. Some portions of the Bible were obviously written to be understood in a symbolic way. Other parts of the Bible were clearly written to convey information that would only be able to be properly understood by readers who were willing to put forth some effort to do so.
You wrote: [You say] Adam was not the first man.
If the Bible portrays Adam as literally the first man, why did the writer of Genesis tell us of another inhabited land which existed at the time of Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, "the land of Nod, east of Eden," a land where other people then lived who Cain was afraid might kill him, and a land where Cain found his wife? (Gen. 4: 10-17)
You wrote: [You say] Jesus came for some unknown reason - since he did not come to redeem man from Adamic sin.
The Bible is clear that Christ died to pay for our sins. (Romans 3:23; 14:10-12, 2 Corinthians 5:10)
The actions of Adam, acting as a representative of the entire human race, demonstrated that we are all sinners. Thus Adam's actions brought God's condemnation on all people. Adam's unrighteousness was able to be counted against us by God because of his disobedience, even though we are not all physically related to him, in exactly the same way that Christ's righteousness is able to be credited to us by God because of his obedience, even though none of us is physically related to him.
As Romans 5:18,19 tells us, "For just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one Man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal, a right standing with God and life for all men. For just as by one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners, so by one Man's obedience many will be constituted righteous. (Rom. 5:18,19)
You wrote: [You say] the earth was not flooded.
We know the earth was not flooded. The Hebrew word widely translated as "earth" in the Genesis Flood account in most English Bible translations is translated as "land" in most other places it occurs in the Old Testament. It is also translated as "land," as in the "land" of Noah, in some English Bible translations. Christians believe the Bible, as it was written in its original languages, was inspired by God. We do not believe all translations of the Bible were inspired by God.
You wrote: [You say] we need to understand the meaning of obscure words in foreign languages to understand the bible - but you don't understand the foreign language either yet are going to counsel us to learn a word here and there.
Any of us can "learn a word here and there." That's why they print Hebrew and Greek lexicons for Bible students. I have a few on my book shelves. By the way, they are now available for you to use on-line at no charge.
You wrote: You do not believe in the fall of man.
You are correct. That is a man-made doctrine, defined somewhat differently by different religious groups, that I believe clearly contradicts several clear teachings of the Bible.
You wrote: [You say] If Adam had not sinned he still would have died.
The Genesis account clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were created mortal with a dying nature just like us. The story of Adam and Eve told in Genesis makes clear that their being able to live forever was not a part of their original physical nature. Rather, Adam and Eve's ability to live forever depended entirely on their eating from a tree "in the middle of the garden" of Eden, "the tree of life". (Genesis 2:9) Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were going to be allowed to eat from that tree only if they passed a God given test, a test which we are told they failed. After failing that test God expelled Adam and his wife from the Garden of Eden and prevented them from eating from "the tree of life."
Genesis indicates that had Adam and Eve been allowed to eat from "the tree of life" their lives would have been prolonged indefinitely. (Genesis 3:22-24) But when God prevented them from eating from "the tree of life" they died what were apparently natural deaths. A careful reading of the Genesis account shows us that living forever would have been as unnatural for Adam and Eve as it would now be for us.
Genesis does not indicate that Adam and Eve originally had eternal life programmed into their genetic codes by God and later had their genetic codes reprogrammed by God in order to remove eternal life from those codes. Rather, Genesis indicates that Adam and Eve would have lived forever only if God had graciously given them eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life."
However, there was no chance of that happening. For any "God" would certainly know from the beginning the eventual outcome of the "test" Genesis tells us He gave to Adam and Eve. Heck, any dope could have guessed how things would turn out.
God told Adam that if he ate some fruit he would die. God then put Adam alone in that garden for how long? Then God gave him a beautiful naked woman as his new best friend, "helper" and lover. Now this gorgeous babe tells Adam she thinks they should eat the forbidden fruit. Besides, she tells him, she's heard that if they do they wont really die at all.
God didn't need to see into the future to figure out what Adam was going to do under those circumstances. Anyone could have guessed who Adam was going to care most about pleasing? After sleeping with squirrels for what JWs tell us was quite a few years, what man wouldn't have risked his life to make sure he didn't lose that lady's love and affection? Even if God then "chose not to" look into the future, as JWs say, the God who created man would have had to have had a very poor knowledge of His own creation not to have known that Adam was certainly going to fail that "test."
The only way the story of Adam and Eve makes sense is to understand that God not only knew how things were going to end up in Eden, but that He deliberately set the whole thing up to make a point. What point? This one. If Adam in paradise, without a problem in the world, could not manage to obey one simple command from God, what chance does any human being have of living their entire trouble-plagued life without sinning either in word, thought or deed? No chance at all. That is the lesson that was illustrated in Eden. Human beings have a sinful nature. And because we do, none of us, being less righteous than God, is deserving of eternal life. And that because we are always less righteous than God we are always in need of His forgiveness even when we have not recently committed any "sinful" act.
I believe this lesson was illustrated by Adam and Eve being totally unaware of their nakedness before God until after they had committed a blatant act of disobedience. (Nakedness is a condition always portrayed as shameful in the scriptures.) Then, suddenly, after they had "sinned" they became aware of their nakedness and felt the need to "hide from God." Just as we often only become aware of our shameful condition before God after committing some "sinful act." And just as we then often feel ashamed of ourselves and try to hide from God by withdrawing from Him by not praying or by not attending Church, etc., until we finally get over our guilt. However, the fact is, we are no more worthy to stand in the presence of a perfect God before committing a "sinful act" than we are after doing so. Just as Adam and Eve were, in reality, just as naked before they disobeyed God as they were after doing so. They just didn't realize it.
Why did God give us a "sinful" nature? Because "God is love," He wanted to create people whom He could have a loving relationship with. But since true love can be neither forced nor programmed, in order to have loving relationships with us, God had to create us as free people. Free to choose to love God and His ways or to not love God and His ways. In other words, free to do both right and wrong, free to do both good and evil.
Because we can do wrong and often do, and because God can't do wrong and never does, we are less righteous than God. And because we are none of us deserve to live forever. That means all human beings have, in effect, from their births been condemned by God to die. Not because of anything Adam did, but because we ourselves all fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)
That's the bad news. Now the Good News. The Bible tells us that God was willing to accept the death of His Son Jesus Christ in place of the deaths which own His high standards had determined we all must suffer. (Matthew 20:28; John 10:11; Romans 3:24; 1 Corinthians 6:20; Ephesians 1:7; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 9:26; 1 Peter 1:18,19; 1 John 1:7; 4:10; Rev. 5:9.)
This is the Good News presented in the pages of the New Testament. That even though God's high standards demanded our deaths as the penalty for our sins, He is willing to accept the death of Jesus Christ in place of the deaths of all who now accept Christ's death as payment in full for all their sins. And because God accepts Christ's death as payment for the sins of Christians, He no longer considers Christians to be sinners. Rather, He considers them to be righteous ones who are now fully worthy of eternal life. And because He does, He now promises to give eternal life to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ.
You wrote: You and the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate are pals.
Hey, we apostates have to stick together. And, as you might agree, we have always been pretty sharp people.
You wrote: [You say] other people existed before and while Adam and Eve existed, yet Eve was still created.
I believe creating Eve from Adam's side was an important part of the story God told in Eden. He could have "imported" a wife for Adam from outside of Eden. Or God could have taken two previously living people from outside of Eden to use in His demonstration. But "starting from scratch" in the way that He did was an important part of the story God was telling.
I believe God wanted to tell the story of His previous creation of mankind by creating a microcosm of that creation in Eden. I believe in order to tell this story properly God had to create two brand new people.
First of all, I believe God purposely derived the name "Adam" for his newly created man whom He placed in Eden from the race of people He had earlier created and called "man." (Gen. 1:27) ( The Hebrew word for "man" is 'adam.) Why would God do that? Because I believe He intended for the story of Adam and Eve in Eden to mirror His creation of the race called "man" ('adam) He had previously created. God created Adam, not from nothing, but from from the dust of the ground, which when viewed under a microscope is seen to be filled with life, just as He had previously created the human race from pre-existing life. God gave Adam a wife who came from his own gene pool, small as it was, just as the wives He had given to the men He had earlier created had come from their own gene pools. God had a very special relationship with Adam and Eve, as His relationship with the previously created human race was very special in much the same way. God gave Adam and Eve a garden home in the middle of a barren land, just as the home He previously gave to the human race was the only "garden spot" in our barren solar system, and possibly the only "garden spot" in our entire barren universe. God made all the animals in Eden subject to Adam and Eve, just as He had earlier subjected all animals on earth to the human race He had previously created. God allowed Adam and eve to be tempted by Satan just as He had previously allowed all members of the human race to be tempted by various forms of evil, temptations they too gave into. God arranged things so that Adam and Eve would acquire an intimate "knowledge of good AND evil," in order for them to gain a personal knowledge of why God's ways are best, a knowledge that would serve them well for all eternity. He had earlier done the same thing for the entire human race.
Derek, You asked: Which of these are literal and which are figurative? How is it possible to tell: Common sense should do.
You wrote: God created the world in six days, and rested on the seventh. Scientists assure us that our earth and universe are both billions of years old. So, if the Bible is truthful, the "days" of Genesis must be understood as figurative. Besides, Gen. 2:4 speaks of "the day [singular] that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." Obviously then, the writer of Genesis was not using the word "day" to refer to a 24 hour time period. For after telling us of everything that happened during all seven of those "days" he told us that it all happened on only one day. It is obvious then that the writer of Genesis was using the word "day" to simply refer to a long period of time. We often do the same today when we say, for instance, "In my father's day." You wrote: The sky is an expanse of water above the earth (1:6-8) Gen. 1:6-8 describes the "sky" as an expanse of space between the waters on the earth and those above the earth. That is indeed what the sky is. The waters above the earth are clouds. The waters on the earth are oceans, seas, lakes, etc. The sky exists between the two.
You wrote: The earth and plant life were created before the sun, moon and stars (1:14-19) You are comparing the events of "day" three, during which "the land produced vegetation," to the events of "day" four during which "God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness." Genesis "day" four has been called "the age of star gazing." Scientists tell us that It began about 4.2 billion years ago. Even though earth's thick steamy atmosphere had cleared by condensing into rain nearly 200 million years earlier, from earth's surface the sun, moon and stars remained hidden from view, blocked by earth's thick unbroken cloud cover. Scientists tell us that from earth's surface an observer would have first been able to see these heavenly bodies about 4.2 billion years ago. For it was then that the clouds first began to break up in some areas. However, the dense largely CO2 atmosphere which then existed produced very hazy skies over most of earth's surface would have allowed only an unclear view of the sun, moon and stars from earth's surface. A fully transparent atmosphere did not develop for another 3.5 billion years, until plant life had fully changed earth's atmosphere replacing hazy CO2 with clear oxygen. It is important here to note that it is the Hebrew verb "Asa" which Gen. 1:16 uses in reference to the sun, moon, and stars being "made" by God on the fourth "day." And Hebrew lexicons tell us that "Asa" does not connote "the absolute newness of the object" that has been made, as does the Hebrew verb "Bara" used elsewhere in Genesis chapter one. Rather, we are told that "Asa" primarily connotes "the fashioning of" preexisting materials. This being so, I believe the writer of Genesis was telling us that God caused the preexisting sun, moon and stars to first become visible from earth's surface during this fourth creative period of time. (see Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, by Harris, Archer & Waltke, 1980, Vol.2, pg. 701) You wrote: No plants grew before God created Adam [contradicts chapter 1] (Gen 2:5) There is no contradiction here. Genesis chapter 1 does not tell us of God's creation of Adam. It tells us of God's creation of "man," i.e., the pre-adamic human race. Prior to God's creation of Adam the land where He would create a garden home for him was barren. You wrote: Adam was made from dust, and God breathed life into him. (2:7) That is what the Bible tells us. You wrote: God placed Adam in the garden of Eden (2:8-15) That is what the Bible tells us. You wrote: God then formed animals from dust and had Adam name them all [contradicts chapter 1] (2:19.20) Again, there is no contradiction here. Genesis chapter 1 does not tell us of God's creation of Adam. It tells us of God's creation of "man," i.e., the pre-adamic human race. You wrote: God made Eve out of Adam's rib (2:21-23) That is what the Bible tells us. You wrote: A talking snake convinced Eve to eat from a forbidden tree; this fruit made her wise and caused God to expel them from the garden of Eden. (3:1-24) The Bible tells us that talking snake was actually Satan the devil. (Rev. 12:9) And the Bible does not say that eating that fruit made Eve wise. It says by her eating it, by her disobeying God, she gained a personal knowledge of both good and evil. Having a knowledge of both good and evil does not necessarily equate to being wise. You wrote: God cursed the talking snake to crawl on its belly (3:14) Nothing is said here or implied that snakes did not already crawl on their bellies. Snakes have always been among the least loved and "lowest" creatures on our planet. God saw to it that Satan would use a snake to talk to Adam and Eve to illustrate Satan's character. Because of the events in Eden, from that time forward snakes have been "cursed" by being closely associated with Satan the devil. The real "curse" however has been that which was then spoken against Satan by God Himself. For God then told Satan that He would one day raise up a Savior for the human race. And God told Satan that Savior "will crush your head." (Gen. 3:15)
