About Noah And That Wooden Boat

Mainstream Christianity taught the Bible stories to children, but as they grew up they learned that the Bible was didactic literature and required serious study and contemplation..

This crap comes out of the ignorance and fear and poverty of the 1930s.

 

That is silly because the evolution of humanity was not even suspected until Darwin.
The church people immediately opposed his ideas.
That anti-science position by the old medieval peoples and is still is with us today.

That Genesis is actually dead on, and lists the same ideas as science now dictates as correct, is a shock to the church people.
But it also is to the science people, too, because they have long believed the church had read the bible comprehensively.

The science people never read the bible , but listened to the churches' protests and figured that was what the bible was saying.

 

Maybe in YOUR family they had a problem with science and the Bible, but educated people have always known the Bible was neither history nor science.

 

That is nonsense.
The Bible has long been a closed book, as it tells us itself:

2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

The reason the book was closed was because man dd not know enough to interpret what it was saying.
Of course this never stopped the denominational churches from saying that they understood everything.

 

It is not an argument against the bible. It is simply seeing the bible for what it actually is. It spoke to a people in a cultural context and a technological context. And it wasn't meant to be taken literally in much of it, as in the creation story. It was meant to only communicate to a people that god was the creator, and no doubt borrowed from other earlier stories from other cultures. We have evidence of this borrowing, unless one just chooses to ignore it. We even see that borrowing in the NT when it comes to Christ. It was obviously common back then, and people understood it better than today.

 

Repeating your premise, that the Bible is neither historically accurate or scientifically true does NOT men you are correct.
It just means that this is your position, and you will not accept evidence when you see it.

 

So you believe,...
But the argument I present is not based on your assumptions.
My argument is that the Bible is correct.

It starts with the Big Bang beginning, which until 1940, was considered wrong by science.
Then it tells us that visible light did not appear at first, but was a separate step in the process, later on.

We now know that a long 400 million year delay in the appearance of visible is true.
There was a Cosmic Dark Age before the stars appeared.

On and on, everything stated makes rational sense of Genesis.
But it was written so ancient people would repeat the story and believe it even though what the understood was wrong about science.
They assumed the seven "days" were 24 hour durations, but they were actually eras of time.

What is so amazing is the writers awareness of how the choice of words and the presentation itself had to consider the belated stages of humanity so as to write for them and us, today, who know the truth.

 

At what point did the earth revolve around the sun every 24 hours?

 

Even the creation story was borrowed. So, the man who wrote it before Moses, came up with it. You believe in borrowed stories, which were not written by who you think wrote them.

https://suite.io/robert-mcroberts/52rd2z5

 

Well Judea and Israel had different creation stories that were cobbled together when King Omri tried to reunite the two.

 

The issue here is not the science...it is your attempt to bastardize it to twist it into a fable.

 

https://suite.io/robert-mcroberts/52rd2z5

 

The question is immaterial to Genesis, since the first day began at the Big Bang beginning, before light transpired through the universe.

Then we also were specifically told that initially, the Earth was without form, an accretion disk of rocks spinning around the Sun:



This is scientifically correct, of course, and to helps certify what I have said that the seven "durations" were not earth days at all.

Nevertheless, the Earth's Solar Clock idea appears AFTER the first life was created as plants.
This supports the idea that the bio-rhythms of the circadian clock inside life was tied to this Gen 1:14 of time on Earth as opposed to time before the sphere took form 4.5 billion years ago.

 

LOL
When you say the Genesis doesn't make sense because it doesn't conform to science you must add "according to myself."

As I show you verse by verse,that Genesis DOES conform to science, your protest is that I am bastardizing the old church people, not Genesis which I read directlu from the Bible.

 

Thank you.. I have read similar comparisons.. I don't think there is any question of the influences.. Ugarit, which were north coast Canaanites, also provided some stories poems and many of the proverbs.

 

Nonsense. This is muslim crap taught to people as if it was true.

Genesis not only is valid as demonstrated by the dead sea scrolls, but it is uncanny and accurate when compared to modern science.

I explains that the Plant Kingdom DID appear before the Animal Kingdom, which is biologically correct.
Lt then enumerates the 22 species of mankind, one after the next, presenting the life span of each as long durations of time well beyond that of a single person, using the concept of years to mean thousands of years.

 

Okay...allow me to explain a bit more clearly, that you might be able to grasp the details.

When you remove the names used for human ancestors and replace them with something completely different in an attempt to make the science fit into an unintended and opposing hypothesis....you have bastardized, corrupted, misused, warped, and invalidated the original.

See how that works?

 

You added the accretion comment. Here is what it says....

After he created the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless, and empty.....Which could mean something totally different than you imagined...."darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of god was hovering over the waters. So, the earth appears to be without detail, but there were waters which sounds like there was no earth or land yet.

You are reading into this what you want to read. I can read those same scripture and see something else, and I think mine is more accurate. For I don't have a preconceived agenda when I read it. I just take the words for what they seem to mean, on their own.

BTW, I am not an atheist. I think there is a creator. I just don't believe in an particular culture's attempt to define him, as being correct. For these were conditioned men, conditioned by their era, their culture, even their language. And this is the corrupting factor.

 

That is silly to assume that Genesis ought have decided what names the scientists of the future should use when they finally collected all the fossils and missing bones.
That does NOT mean the facts were wrong in either case.

What you need do is decide whether your mind is open to discovering that the Bible is factually correct or not, and then decide to stop just repeating that it is not.
What I am doing is comparing facts with direct statements, and often allowing for changes that would have been necessary to tell the facts to ancient people right up until the day of Darwin.
I have found the story in Genesis to be very accurate and even more correct than one could ask for.

 

Well, that the plants appeared before the animals is just human reasoning. The ancients could reason as well as we can. They depended upon plants for their food, in fact grains allowed civilization to arise. So, they could reason that plants were here first, for if we were here first, all we could eat was other animals. Plants were very important to them, for you could not always find an animal to kill to ward off starving to death.

 

?
A "formless" earth would be one that was not spherical yet.
That is exactly what happened.

The verse makes clear and scientific sense when we read it properly, like this:

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, (a spinning cloud of dust and gases) and void: [not valid]; (an accretion disk), and darkness: [choshek: obscurity] was upon the face of the deep: [tehowm: the deep primeval abyss]. And (the great Shechinah), the spirit, (i.e.; the panentheistic Natural Laws) of God moved upon the face: [paniym: presence] of the waters (of these transitory things or rocks in the accretion disk: [mayim: Hebrew])

- - - Updated - - -

True, maybe.
But accurate and relative to the general evolutionary ideas that follow with the names listed in a genealogy in Chapter 4 and chapter 5.

 

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Islam.. Omri tried to reunite Judea and Israel and he set the scribes to combining and rewriting the two versions.. The work got done, but Omri died in Egypt so his efforts at reunification were unsuccessful..

 

All you need to know is that the Earth is the oldest celestial object in the universe and that grass and fruit trees are the oldest life forms, existing before the Sun. It's Biblical.

 

I didn't mean that this story had to do with Islam.
I meant that you have long feed into anti-Bible readings and criticism against the scriptures in general, because your muslim outlook needs to build a case against scripture to remain solid.

You are quick to agree with criticism and fast in denying evidence that is genetic or histories which support scripture.
I appreciate that you are well educated and knowledgeable.
I recognize that you are intelligent, too.
You are just wrong about scripture and the Islam you embrace without question.

 

The misused word, "grass" was chosen by the KJV interpreters.
They ought have used the correct Hebrew word which actually means "first kind of life."

Thus life appeared in the seas, not on land.

Gen. 1:11 And (Father Nature, Reality), God, said, Let the earth bring forth (the earliest anaerobic life forms that did not use oxygen or sun to exist, heterotrophs, from which shall evolve) "grass," (i.e.; the first forms of life), the herb yielding seed (which will evolve thereafter), and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.