Literal six days, literal flood, is it true?

Do you have any education in geology or any science?

 

It was probably common knowledge back then. The law that God gave to Moses was reiterating that fact.

- - - Updated - - -

That would violate many scriptures including death coming after Adam and Eve sinned.

 

Do you? Even if I know nothing about either field I can still quote creation scientists who are.

 

A bit.. I have looked at lots of core samples and grew up around geologists... plus I had the basic courses in college.

The Dead Sea and the African Plate rift are 30 million years old.

 

"probably"? What reason did He give for revising his law? He gave the Law to Moses, the Law-Giver, with no advice that it was just reheated Old Law. Moses treated it as new. Why do you cavil?

 

The law of "Moses" came from the earlier Code of Hammurabi and the Egyptian Book of the Dead.. and heaven knows where they got it from.

 

Well if they weren't miracles to the people who wrote this stuff down, then there would have been no reason for the writings.
These people are saying that these things happened, and were miracles to them, too.

So even if you don't accept what they say they thought was miraculous, you have to agree they testified that the unbelievable did happen,... and they saw it.

 

Not necessarily true, though.
Jesus did things which were called miracles.
But hypnosis is a possible explanation for what he did.

Even today, we have no idea what hypnosis is,... why it works,... or how it works.
But we see it, and say its no miracle for us now.

 

The stories were borrowed from the myths of earlier cultures to give the Hebrews a history and identity that set them apart from the other Canaanite tribes.. None of the stories are actual history or science.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it was necessary to embellish the Jesus story.. They had to give it supernatural twists.

 

The story fits the facts for two lines of human ascent which suffered extinctions that ended with three racial stocks of Modern men flooding across the while world even up the mountain tops.
The "ark" was the skull of modern man.
That skull carried into the new world made for this species all the names of the animals we still recognize today.

The story could never have been written in terms we understand now, because no people alive back then would have accepted or understood the ideas.

 

Now you are embellishing the stories .........

 

Only two types of people would agree with on that.

1) The people who like to bash the story explained by Creationists.

2) The Creationists.

 

But you said you don't like seeing the supernatural used to explain the supernatural, and now you don't like Reality either:


"There is a tendency to explain the supernatural with more supernatural rather than look at the realities." [Quote: Margot2]

 

Your "reality" is all about fabricating your own stories.. adding to each and nearly every verse.. and IMO that's every bit as dumb as Creation Science ... Study scripture in light of the politics and history of the times... although the time lines and geography are pretty fast and loose.

 

Fine.
You are on the other side.

I write for reasonable people to see that your condemnation of scripture is based only against what creationists insist the Bible means.
They can see you also reject factual basis for understanding.

You NEED the creationists badly in order to condemn the bible.

 

Why do you think understanding what the Bible stories are is a condemnation?

 

If the bible isn't divinely inspired, written and directed by the big guy in the sky, then it pretty much has to be relegated to the rest of the pile of early metal age poetry, literature and wisdom.

Questioning it and trying to understand the stories within the context they were written, is only condemnation to those who see it as the foundation of their personal faith in the definition of their existence and their mortality escape route.

 

No....you hammer, bang, twist, fold, mutitlate and twist the scientific facts....and try to make the story fit inside it.

Your logic is reversed....the story was written by people who had no knowledge of geology or history or paleontology....and we see today by those sciences that their myths were false, not "written so they could understand them."

You simply want "explain how Santa Claus can exceed lightspeed and thus travel backwards in time to visit every child on earth"....and try to use Einsteinian physics to make it seem "plausible".

 

Keep in mind, Margot .....that you will incur an obsessive "wrath" from Cupid Dave for you disagreeing with him.

Not because you disagree....but because you are a woman.

 

Yes.. I am surprised at the Masoretic text and the changes in prophesies around the 10th century AD.

- - - Updated - - -

That is most certainly true........

 

One would hope you can understand that YOU just condemned your own Bible(s) with this statement, in the eyes of creationists. Not surprising considering that most Christians consider most other Christians to not be Christians according to how they all interpret the same damn book(s). So a few Christians end up making new ones because they do not like how the old one's got edited or decide to add new stuff.

 

And I think we all know why.....but if any don't?... happy to PM you with an explanation of Cupid Dave.

 

Please do.............

 

Probably common knowledge? Where would they get that knowledge from, until God even stated there are clean and unclean.
For trying to make statements and convince people, you use seems like, probably, could be, etc, a lot. With no facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure you can, but it's a waste of your time. I can post books about santa claus, that doesn't make it any more factual.

 

Were the dinosaurs to big to go on the ark? They would have died in the flood, yes? 4000 yrs ago.