 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Craig2uguys wrote: | | The interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that I learned from my own personal study of the Book of Genesis, as I learned later, is precisely the same interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that is held today by the most knowledgeable and capable scholars of the Book of Genesis... |
In other words... you have no scripture to back up your interpretation.
| Quote: | | and by the most knowledgeable and capable scholars of ancient Oriental literature, the body of literature to which the Book of Genesis belongs. |
Still no scripture...
| Quote: | | It is also a fact that the interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that I learned from my own personal study of the Book of Genesis is in perfect harmony with 99.95% of the biologists and geologists living today who have earned at least a Ph.D. in those sciences from a college or university that is internationally known for academic excellence. |
Cool... really... but that is not what I asked for... now... is it?
| Quote: | | The interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that you have posted, however, ……. |
Predicated on scripture, associated scripture that backs up the exegesis, and also some linguistic science that can be found HERE.
| Quote: | | The interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that I have posted, therefore, needs no defense. |
That is exactly what I thought... no defense of the indefensible... 
| Quote: | | The interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that you have posted has no defense |
Other than Exodus 20:11... which was written by God. Real nice. Was God confused when He wrote this?
| Quote: | | so you have resorted to name calling and posting gibberish. |
Excuse me? Name calling? Where I have I resorted to name calling here? Please.... cite where. If I have not... please, post a retraction. As far as gibberish is concerned... look... I asked you to cite scipture to demonstrate the veracity of your interpretation. You have offered a grand total of ZIP, ZERO, NONE, NADA. If mine is gibberish... then yours is non-existent. Your appeal to authority is truly amazing. Perhaps some of these "experts" have cited scripture... can you at least share which verses they have cited?
| Quote: | | And, of course, the Scriptures that you have posted in your defense are the very Scriptures that prove that you have no defense. |
For in 6 DAYS the Lord created the heavens and the earth.... which match exactly with Gen 1. Gen 1 lays out a 6 day period... a literal period of time. Exodus 20:11 lays out what a work week should be.. 6 days, not billions, millions or thousands of years. How is that confusing?
| Quote: | | If you are wrong, and of course you are, |
You most certainly will be able to cite the chapter and verse demonstrating as much. The appeal to authority without citation is empty rhetoric. I have, you haven't, but yet... I am wrong. Are you ever going to get around to demonstrating how?
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Funny... I demonstrated that Darwin's remarks and theory were racist in nature... |
You demonstrated that you understand neither, more like. "Darwin/evolution = racist" is played, Trinity1. It's false. |
Ok... if FFT says so...
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | If not... the assertion stands FFT… when you compare blacks on the evolutionary ladder next to apes…. you are essentially a racist human piece of debris. |
We're all apes. Is that racist too? |
Nooooo.... but... when you state that one race is closer to Apes than they other... because they have further evolved... then yes, I would say that is racist...
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Cite FFT... where did Darwin distinguish his softer side of bigotry… |
Darwin opposed slavery, for starters. Look, this is all old hat. Link, link and link. |
Oh yes... I almost forgot about TO... that fine and unbiased clearing house for evolutionary dogma. Going to have to cleanse my computer with Holy Water again after visiting that site.
Paaaaalese, do some frigging research FFT... on your own. Address the quotes and proof I have offered instead of running to TO which demonstrated zippo other than their opinion.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | So what??? Tell that to Oda Benga... that should make him feel a whole hell of a lot better.... Darwin and his theory propogated events that led to this poor man's... and millions of others, death. |
Darwin didn't propose social Darwinism. |
No... you are right... it was only those he knew and trusted that did. I'm sure you know of some of Huxley's remarks. Would you like for me to post a few? Darwin knew what this guy was saying and did nothing to lift a finger to stop it or admonish him. If he was such a great 'progressive' as you paint him as, why no condemnation? Kinda like all of them peaceful Muslims out there condemning terrorism that we read about everyday... it is and was non-existent FFT.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Half right... he was racist... |
Again, he was progressive for his time. |
Yeah, so was one that intently studied and attempted to apply his work... Hitler.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I’m splitting this response up into a few different posts to make it more palatable…
| Craig2uguys wrote: | [b][color=blue]A few facts regarding Noah’s Ark that must be considered in evaluating the literalness of the account in Gen. 6–8:
• The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float. |
Really, can you show us the math on this? Please include the total weight on board, to include the food for the animals, the ratio of displacement, the type of wood and its buoyant properties, etc…
| Quote: | | • The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other). |
Does the Bible have animals eating each other prior to Gen 11? If so, please, chapter and verse.
| Quote: | | • The amount of food required for the animals would weigh nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space. |
OK... how many animals were aboard?
| Quote: | | • Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc. |
Such as...
| Quote: | | • Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive. |
Does the Bible state that fish were brought onboard the ark? I can help you out with this one if you want....
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith
Last edited by Trinity1 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:13 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig wrote: | | • The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water. |
and... so what?
| Quote: | | • After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast amount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood. |
For someone who has 'studied Genesis' intently like you have insisted, I find it odd that you are completely ignorant of the Flood story. If you weren't you would know what the criteria for an animal to get on the ark was and that they didn't need to have plants available within 150 days...
| Quote: | | • Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood. |
| Quote: | | • The Animals could not all be released all at once or in the same place because they would eat each other. |
See above question....
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig wrote: | | • The coming of the animals to Noah from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed a few special difficulties. |
Is that so? It took Noah 120 years to build that ark... is that to short of a time period for a few of these animals to make the trip?
| Quote: | | • After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood. |
Wow... and I thought you were a proponent of natural selection and adaptation... silly me...
| Quote: | | • Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons. |
I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about here...
| Quote: | | • Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family. |
Why?
| Quote: | | • There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood. |
Really? Ya think this... or you know this? If I could demonstrate to you otherwise, would you at least admit you are wrong?
| Quote: | | • If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend. |
If the reported sightings of Noah's Ark are not correct what does this do to your argument?
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daviddale3
Kitten
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 146
Location: georgia
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry I have not been able to participate in the debate, been busy researching the items Craig2youguys had posted. I see that Trinity1 has taken up the torch on this (Great job Trinity1) so I will let him go with that for the time being.
But I do have a question for those of you who think that Genesis 1-11 is some sort of fiction. Numerous times it has been asked to provide scripture to backup your claims, yet none of you have ever tried to give any. My question is WHY? It seems pretty simple to me. Just give us something, anything that would remotely backup your assertions. Please, Please, Please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daviddale3 wrote: | | Numerous times it has been asked to provide scripture to backup your claims, yet none of you have ever tried to give any. My question is WHY? It seems pretty simple to me. Just give us something, anything that would remotely backup your assertions. Please, Please, Please. |
It is a rhetorical question... the reason why no one ever provides scripture to demonstrate the veracity of their interpretation of Gen 1-11 is because... yep... there is none. It is their interpretation that is divisive, ignorant, and has nothing to do with scripture but their own opinions... not the YECs.
Now, if they want to debate the science behind thier interpretation... fine... but it is not scriptural in any way shape or form. If it is, it is incumbant upon them to demonstrate otherwise how.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daviddale3 wrote: | Sorry I have not been able to participate in the debate, been busy researching the items Craig2youguys had posted. I see that Trinity1 has taken up the torch on this (Great job Trinity1) so I will let him go with that for the time being.
But I do have a question for those of you who think that Genesis 1-11 is some sort of fiction. Numerous times it has been asked to provide scripture to backup your claims, yet none of you have ever tried to give any. My question is WHY? It seems pretty simple to me. Just give us something, anything that would remotely backup your assertions. Please, Please, Please. |
The Holy Scriptures represent many different genres of literature but these Scriptures usually do not tell us which genres of literature are being represented. Therefore this information must be learned by a very careful reading of the Scriptures in the original language and other literature in the same language written in the same time frame and by comparing this literature with the literature of other languages and cultures. It is no accident that there is an extremely high degree of correlation between one’s level of education and one’s interpretation of the Bible. Those individuals with very little education have very little data to evaluate and draw conclusion from, and as one would expect, they make many serious mistakes. Those individuals with many years of formal education followed by decades of personal study, including the reading of thousands of studies written by other such scholars, have a vast amount of data to evaluate and draw conclusion from, and as one would expect, they make far fewer and much less serious mistakes. They are not always right about everything, but at least they have invested very many years of their life in the study of the Scriptures and their conclusions should not be dismissed as incorrect by anyone who is not familiar with the data upon which the conclusions were made.
Distinguishing one genre of literature from another has become increasingly more important to both laymen and scholars and several of the newer translations of the Bible are presenting the text on the page to help the reader to distinguish, for example, poetry from prose. In addition, very many volumes have been written on the literature of the Bible at a level that makes them understandable by lay people with a limited education.
Are educated people superior to uneducated people? No, we all have our individual talents and abilities and personal qualities. However, no rational human being would believe that an uneducated layman would have the same ability as the best educated and informed neurosurgeon to perform an exceedingly difficult and complex surgical procedure of the brain. And very much of that neurosurgeon’s education is solidly based upon scientific information that absolutely proves that a literal interpretation of Genesis is a WRONG interpretation of Genesis.
_________________
2 Cor. 5:17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (NKJV) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daviddale3
Kitten
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 146
Location: georgia
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig2uguys wrote: | | daviddale3 wrote: | Sorry I have not been able to participate in the debate, been busy researching the items Craig2youguys had posted. I see that Trinity1 has taken up the torch on this (Great job Trinity1) so I will let him go with that for the time being.
But I do have a question for those of you who think that Genesis 1-11 is some sort of fiction. Numerous times it has been asked to provide scripture to backup your claims, yet none of you have ever tried to give any. My question is WHY? It seems pretty simple to me. Just give us something, anything that would remotely backup your assertions. Please, Please, Please. |
The Holy Scriptures represent many different genres of literature but these Scriptures usually do not tell us which genres of literature are being represented. Therefore this information must be learned by a very careful reading of the Scriptures in the original language and other literature in the same language written in the same time frame and by comparing this literature with the literature of other languages and cultures. It is no accident that there is an extremely high degree of correlation between one’s level of education and one’s interpretation of the Bible. Those individuals with very little education have very little data to evaluate and draw conclusion from, and as one would expect, they make many serious mistakes. Those individuals with many years of formal education followed by decades of personal study, including the reading of thousands of studies written by other such scholars, have a vast amount of data to evaluate and draw conclusion from, and as one would expect, they make far fewer and much less serious mistakes. They are not always right about everything, but at least they have invested very many years of their life in the study of the Scriptures and their conclusions should not be dismissed as incorrect by anyone who is not familiar with the data upon which the conclusions were made.
Distinguishing one genre of literature from another has become increasingly more important to both laymen and scholars and several of the newer translations of the Bible are presenting the text on the page to help the reader to distinguish, for example, poetry from prose. In addition, very many volumes have been written on the literature of the Bible at a level that makes them understandable by lay people with a limited education.
Are educated people superior to uneducated people? No, we all have our individual talents and abilities and personal qualities. However, no rational human being would believe that an uneducated layman would have the same ability as the best educated and informed neurosurgeon to perform an exceedingly difficult and complex surgical procedure of the brain. And very much of that neurosurgeon’s education is solidly based upon scientific information that absolutely proves that a literal interpretation of Genesis is a WRONG interpretation of Genesis. |
Fine then, would it still be to much to ask if you can supply some scripture to base your interpretation on?
Or is it as Trinity1 has set forth;
| Quote: | | It is a rhetorical question... the reason why no one ever provides scripture to demonstrate the veracity of their interpretation of Gen 1-11 is because... yep... there is none. It is their interpretation that is divisive, ignorant, and has nothing to do with scripture but their own opinions... not the YECs. |
Being as no one has supplied any scriptural proof of their interpretation, then I must agree with Trinity1 on this matter.
This is very disheartening to say the least. As I have indicated before, if the record recorded in Genesis 1-11 is not historical fact, then we have no reliable revelation from God. In fact, the whole of Christianity is a shame, a fake, and a lie. If that be so, then we are all without hope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig2uguys wrote: | | Are educated people superior to uneducated people? No, we all have our individual talents and abilities and personal qualities. |
Craig... when you say 'we' (inferring 'educated people') what criteria are you using to include yourself among the 'educated'? This is precisely what I meant by intellectual snobbery.
You appeal to authority when challenged to demonstrated the veracity of your argument, but will not even attempt to try to engage on topic in this discussion. You continue to try to denigrate others that disagree with you by calling them, or inferring that, they are simply uneducated doofs that apparently lack the 'accepted credentials' you are appealing too
So.. tell all of us what qualifies one as 'educated' here.
| Quote: | | And very much of that neurosurgeon’s education is solidly based upon scientific information that absolutely proves that a literal interpretation of Genesis is a WRONG interpretation of Genesis. |
 Waaaaahat? How does a neurosurgeons’ training and education prove a literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong?
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig2uguys wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Craig2uguys wrote: | | I believe the first chapter of Genesis and every other chapter in the Bible. |
OK... so if the Israelites march around Jericho for 7 days... and God created the earth in 6 days (both use the same Hebrew linguistics BTW), why the problem with those of us who believe that both are literal due to being supported by the context and supporting scriptural passages? |
The two contexts are not even remotely similar and neither are the two genres of literature. |
Um... yes they are. Both ar enarratives. Care to cite what leads you to beleive they are not? Based on extensive research by the previously cited Steve Boyd study... you will see what I mean...
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daviddale3 wrote: | Have you ever read what Peter, Paul, Matt. Jude, John, etc..have written? Here are some things for you to consider:
1) Matt. 24:37-39; Jesus believed that the flood killed every person not on the ark.What else could he have meant when He likened the coming world judgment to the judgment of "all" men in the days of Noah.
2) II Peter 3; the coming judgment by fire is likened to the former judgment by water in Noah' flood A partial judgment in Noah's day, therefore, would mean a partial judgment to come.
3)I Timothy 2:13; in which Paul (which I believe you a a student) states that Adam was the first formed, then Eve. This goes against scientific naturalism.
4) Matt. 19:1-6; Jesus in his discourse the Pharisees on divorce quotes Genesis 1:27 & 2:24. Did Jesus tell a fib? I do not think so.
5) I Peter 3:18_21; Exodus 20:11; Psalm 104:5-9; Job 38 & 39; I Cor. 11:7-12; Mark 10:6-8
6) I Cor. 15:45; Jesus was called the last Adam by Paul. If the first Adam is only a myth, then the last is also a myth. |
In light of David's cited passages demonstrating the veracity of a literal Gen 1-11 account, the complete absence of Craig's or Jacinth's citations of scripture, I would say one interpretation is more Biblically palatable than the other.
Unless of course, there passages that I am unaware of???
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daviddale3 wrote: | Have you ever read what Peter, Paul, Matt. Jude, John, etc..have written? Here are some things for you to consider:
1) Matt. 24:37-39; Jesus believed that the flood killed every person not on the ark.What else could he have meant when He likened the coming world judgment to the judgment of "all" men in the days of Noah.
2) II Peter 3; the coming judgment by fire is likened to the former judgment by water in Noah' flood A partial judgment in Noah's day, therefore, would mean a partial judgment to come.
3)I Timothy 2:13; in which Paul (which I believe you a a student) states that Adam was the first formed, then Eve. This goes against scientific naturalism.
4) Matt. 19:1-6; Jesus in his discourse the Pharisees on divorce quotes Genesis 1:27 & 2:24. Did Jesus tell a fib? I do not think so.
5) I Peter 3:18_21; Exodus 20:11; Psalm 104:5-9; Job 38 & 39; I Cor. 11:7-12; Mark 10:6-8
6) I Cor. 15:45; Jesus was called the last Adam by Paul. If the first Adam is only a myth, then the last is also a myth. |
In light of David's cited passages demonstrating the veracity of a literal Gen 1-11 account, the complete absence of Craig's or Jacinth's citations of scripture, I would say one interpretation is more Biblically palatable than the other.
Unless of course, there passages that I am unaware of???
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daviddale3 wrote: | | Craig2uguys wrote: | | daviddale3 wrote: | Sorry I have not been able to participate in the debate, been busy researching the items Craig2youguys had posted. I see that Trinity1 has taken up the torch on this (Great job Trinity1) so I will let him go with that for the time being.
But I do have a question for those of you who think that Genesis 1-11 is some sort of fiction. Numerous times it has been asked to provide scripture to backup your claims, yet none of you have ever tried to give any. My question is WHY? It seems pretty simple to me. Just give us something, anything that would remotely backup your assertions. Please, Please, Please. |
The Holy Scriptures represent many different genres of literature but these Scriptures usually do not tell us which genres of literature are being represented. Therefore this information must be learned by a very careful reading of the Scriptures in the original language and other literature in the same language written in the same time frame and by comparing this literature with the literature of other languages and cultures. It is no accident that there is an extremely high degree of correlation between one’s level of education and one’s interpretation of the Bible. Those individuals with very little education have very little data to evaluate and draw conclusion from, and as one would expect, they make many serious mistakes. Those individuals with many years of formal education followed by decades of personal study, including the reading of thousands of studies written by other such scholars, have a vast amount of data to evaluate and draw conclusion from, and as one would expect, they make far fewer and much less serious mistakes. They are not always right about everything, but at least they have invested very many years of their life in the study of the Scriptures and their conclusions should not be dismissed as incorrect by anyone who is not familiar with the data upon which the conclusions were made.
Distinguishing one genre of literature from another has become increasingly more important to both laymen and scholars and several of the newer translations of the Bible are presenting the text on the page to help the reader to distinguish, for example, poetry from prose. In addition, very many volumes have been written on the literature of the Bible at a level that makes them understandable by lay people with a limited education.
Are educated people superior to uneducated people? No, we all have our individual talents and abilities and personal qualities. However, no rational human being would believe that an uneducated layman would have the same ability as the best educated and informed neurosurgeon to perform an exceedingly difficult and complex surgical procedure of the brain. And very much of that neurosurgeon’s education is solidly based upon scientific information that absolutely proves that a literal interpretation of Genesis is a WRONG interpretation of Genesis. |
Fine then, would it still be to much to ask if you can supply some scripture to base your interpretation on?
Or is it as Trinity1 has set forth;
| Quote: | | It is a rhetorical question... the reason why no one ever provides scripture to demonstrate the veracity of their interpretation of Gen 1-11 is because... yep... there is none. It is their interpretation that is divisive, ignorant, and has nothing to do with scripture but their own opinions... not the YECs. |
Being as no one has supplied any scriptural proof of their interpretation, then I must agree with Trinity1 on this matter.
This is very disheartening to say the least. As I have indicated before, if the record recorded in Genesis 1-11 is not historical fact, then we have no reliable revelation from God. In fact, the whole of Christianity is a shame, a fake, and a lie. If that be so, then we are all without hope. |
I know for an absolute fact that Genesis 1-11 is not an accurate, literal account of historic events and I would stake my life and salvation on that fact without a second thought. I am the only one in this thread who has posted any solid evidence to support my interpretation of Genesis 1-11, and the Scriptural evidence for my interpretation is found primarily in that that text itself. There is absolutely nothing in the text of Genesis 6-8 that even remotely suggests that it is anything but an epic tale and the very wording and structure of it supports the interpretation that it is an epic tale. This, combined with the fact that we know for an absolute certainty that the worldwide flood described in Genesis 6-8 did not occur, leaves us with only one academically sound interpretation and that is that Gen. 6-8 is an epic tale.
The supposed evidence that has been posted in this thread that Jesus and the New Testament writers believed in a literal interpretation of Gen. 1-11 is based exclusively upon a very naïve and unlearned understanding of the texts in which they are found. I have already explained this in earlier posts in this thread.
We all have the choice to believe uneducated laypersons who know virtually nothing at all or to believe tens of thousands of scholars internationally known for their contribution to the understanding and interpretation of Biblical literature. And some of us have been blessed by God with an outstanding education ourselves.
Biblical truth is not dependent upon absurd interpretations offered by uneducated laypersons; Biblical truth is dependent upon itself and each and every truth in the Bible is a truth because it is a truth and NOT because everything in the Bible is literally true.
_________________
2 Cor. 5:17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (NKJV)
Last edited by Craig2uguys on Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wrote in an earlier post that if I had the time I could post literally millions of proofs from observable science that Genesis 6-8 is NOT an accurate, literal account of historic events. I have managed to find the time to write post # 1:
Dendrochronological and climatological studies in the White Mountains of California at elevations between 10,000 and 11,000 feet have conclusively proven that the climate there has not changed substantially during the past 8,900 years and that the Pinus longaeva trees growing in that area have been growing there without interruption from a flood or other catastrophic event during that entire time. Current dendrochronological studies on wood that has already been gathered from the dead Pinus longaeva trees in the same area are expected to reveal the climate in this area going back at least 10,000 years which is very significant since the last ice age ended just 2,000 years before that.
For example, in 1964 a Pinus longaeva named Prometheus was cut down due to a blunder and it was discovered that the tree was 4,950 years old when it was cut down. Therefore this tree began growing there in about 2,986 B.C. from a seed from a tree that was already growing there and old enough to produce viable seeds. According to Usher’s literal interpretation of Old Testament chronology, Noah and his family entered into the Ark 2,349 B.C. and in the same year it began to rain. If this is true (and of course it is not), Prometheus had already been growing for about 637 years (from a seed from a tree that was already growing there and old enough to produce viable seeds) when the flood occurred.
Therefore we know for an absolute and incontrovertible fact several things:
• The White Mountains of California are at least 8,900 years old.
• At the time the flood is said to have occurred, a tree had been growing in the White Mountains at an elevation above 10,000 feet for about 637 years.
• This tree was still intact in 1964 and for 4,950 years it had been growing without experiencing any substantial changes in the climate.
• This tree grew from a seed from another tree of the same kind that was already old enough to produce a viable seed.
• Other trees of the same kind had been growing in the same area for the past 8,900 years without experiencing any substantial changes in the climate.
• Not only is the earth at least 8,900 years old, but so is its topography in the White Mountains.
• The climate in the White Mountains has not changed substantially in the past 8,900 years.
These are facts that are just as certain as the fact that water is a made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. So, what do the young earth creationists do with these facts? For the very large part they simply ignore them. A few, however, have argued that on rare occasion a tree will produce two tree rings or none at all. And this is true, including the fact that these occasions are known to be rare and they do not significantly affect dendrochronological dates.
_________________
2 Cor. 5:17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (NKJV) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
