I thought I was the only Christian posting on this thread.
Originally posted by merqutio
I suppose that’s fair enough, but I thought we had established that the simple omission of dinosaurs, although a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, was hardly the only stumbling block to accepting the Genesis account.
Specifically-- what is your take on the questions I asked in my last post?
-
Is it your (or anybody’s) belief that dinosaurs, like all other living things, were passengers on Noah’s Ark? If not, by what logic are you excluding them… and if so, we will have further points to discuss.
-
How is it that the fossils of dinosaurs have only, with not a single exception ever, been found buried millions of “years” farther down than more contemporary animals? No fossilized elephant or sheep or bear has ever been found in the same layers that dinosaurs are found in. Similarly, no dinosaur has ever skipped ahead in “time” to have its fossilized remains uncovered among the bones of more contemporary species or of the uppermost layers containing archeological human remains. If they died together, in the flood, whence the separation, which remains standard and predictable throughout the world?
Even if we relieve the bible of the undue stress of being used as a “science textbook”, merquito, which many of us would happily agree to, , there are conflicts between the Genesis account and information we have since learned to be true.
I’d be interested to hear how you would resolve some of them.
merqutio
The Bible says that the Earth was created in six days. Do you believe that?
If so, where do dinosaurs fit in?
They fit in a tiny little capsule, if you haven’t dropped the sponge in the water yet.
The earth was recreated so to speak in 6 days. If you read the entire Bible and fit the pieces together you will see that.
From the KJV:
That is self explanatory. If you find yourself trying to explain that verse in ways other than its obvious meaning; you are on the wrong track.
Job is considered to be the oldest book in the Bible. The time frame is unclear. What is clear is that it is pre-Mosaic Law and possibly pre-flood. Either way, it can not be said with a certainty that the text is not pre-flood (in regards to when it was originally written).
Now, Behemoth may not have been a “dinosaur” but the fact remains that it doesn’t fit the description of any animal that exists today. Leviathan certainly doesn’t fit the description of any animal existing today.
Andros:
quote:
do you have any evidence that Genesis 1 and 2 were written allegorically
Well I don’t recall saying that it couldn’t be allegory but rather put forth the hypothesis that it very likely could be BS. So why you got your panty hose bunched up I’m not sure.
I also don’t think it is true that I have no evidence to the contrary. I think I have pretty good reason to think that the BS hypothesis is considerably more likely then the allegory one as it does not evoke the supernatural. Not sure how allegory is being defined by those putting it forth but it seems to be something to the effect of those who wrote the Genesis accounts did have divine inspiration, though they just felt like writing the order of events inaccurately as it was more poetic to do so, with god inspiring them in such a way that many generations in the future people would burn in hell because the allegory sure looked like it should be taken literally. Also with god knowing people would be put to death because they didn’t rest on the same day god did in the poetic version of the creation account. How you would separate this from just a made up story from clueless sheepherders, I’m not sure but the BS hypothesis sure seems more likely. Do you disagree?
How about eternal paradise? BS, allegory or real?
CigaretteRepairman
Really? Perhaps you can help me out with this passage then:
Genesis 1:1-2a In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty,
So, when God said “created”, he really meant “recreated”, and when he said “formless and empty”, he really meant "formless and empty – except for what was already there…"?
Perhaps you can share with us your wisdom. What “pieces” from other parts of the Bible do I need to “fit together” here?
I know you didn’t and neither did I. In fact I think we all interpret things differently (whether it be slightly differently or majorly). So in my opinion I think that anyone declaring their interpretation (even my own) to be the superior interpretation is pretty silly.
My point was that I didn’t see how Genesis could be taken literally-even though many people do take it literally. IMO, if it’s to be taken at all, it should be for the message, not the literal history. Again, that’s if it should be read at all.
Then again, I will concede that perhaps my problem is that I haven’t heard an explanation of how Genesis could be taken literally.
There is an unknown amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
So in Genesis 1:1 the universe, including the earth was created. In the next verse the earth is in a destroyed state (without form and void, darkness). Did God create the earth in a destroyed state? Not hardly. Perhaps you have read how that Lucifer (Satan) once ruled the earth:
This is a description of Lucifer before his fall. He was in the Garden of Eden, every precious stone was his covering. He was set up on the “holy mountain of God”.
So when did all of this take place? If you assume that Genesis 1:2 takes place immediately after Genesis 1:1 then that doesn’t leave a lot of time for Lucifer to hang out on the earth in his pre-fallen state. When Adam and Eve were created, Lucifer was already a fallen creature (the serpent) and tempted Eve.
Not much is said in the Bible about what took place between the creation of the earth (Gen 1:1) and the recreation of the earth (Gen 1:2). I assume because it doesn’t really apply to the theme of the Bible (salvation of mankind) so it was not necessary to elaborate on it.
The general idea is that when Lucifer rebelled against God, his actions cursed the earth and it was destroyed (not destroyed in the cease to exist sense, just laid to waste on the surface, similar to the effect’s of the later flood of Noah). God started over, this time creating a creature in his own image (as opposed to the angels). Satan hated this new creation and has done everything in his power to destroy it since.
Then of course there is that verse in Genesis where God instructs the first pair of humans to replenish the earth:
Incorrect.
There is no time between these two verses. However, between 1:1 (the intro) and 2:4 (the conclusion) there is seven days – if you believe the story, of course.
It was a nice try, but Gen 2:4 blows your theory.
Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. [Introduction]
{creation story}
Gen 2:4 - This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. [Conclusion]
No time for Lucifer (I guess), no time for dinosaurs, no time for anything. Which, of course, is what makes the whole creation story so ludicrous in the first place.
I have read the entire Bible several times. It says nothing of the sort.
How is the KJV translation any different from the other translations? The point is that it says the tail “moves” or “sways” like a cedar. It doesn’t say that it looks like a cedar or is shaped like a cedar.
(The KJV is an awful translation, btw.)
This isn’t clear at all. The dating of Job is somewhat debated. It probably had a second millenium BCE oral tradition but it wasn’t written down until sometime between 1000-800 BCE. Even the earliest assertions put in the patriarchal age (circa 1500 BCE) and that still puts it after the so-called “flood.”
**
It can be said with absolute certainty that there was no flood so this debate is pretty much moot.
Sure it does. It fits the description of hippos and elephants.
Since the description claims that Leviathan breathed fire it doesn’t fit the description of any animal ever, including dinosaurs.
If you remove that bit of hyperbolic and probably metaphoric language. however, you get a fairly decent description of a crocodile.
“Nice try”? I would like to say as much for your “rebuttal” but I can’t. Genesis 2:4?
Read that and pay attention. God originally created the heavens and the earth in “the day” implying that they were created at the same time. No dispute here. Odd that God would create the entire universe including the earth in one day but then have to go back and spend 6 days putting stuff back on the earth. Did he also create all of the planets in a formless and void state? Did he need to go back and do up the canals on Mars after he created Mars? Did he have to go and put the finishing touches on all of the stars?
The earth was in a state of destruction at Gen 1:2. No light was able to reach the earth for some reason (indicating something was blocking it out). Since God had already created the “Heavens” then what was preventing the light from reaching the earth? Why was the earth without form? Who creates something in a formless state? It wouldn’t have been a creation, it would have been a partial creation.
The creation accounts of Genesis are in simple language to describe a complex process that God undertook to get the earth back into a proper state.
The time for Lucifer is allotted in the book of Ezekiel and it forces there to be a time period between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, like it or not. So any interpretation that does not include a time period there is by default, wrong. It is wrong in the context of the Bible itself. If Genesis were a standalone book with nothing else canonical written on the subject then you would have a point, but it is not and you don’t.
According to this ludicrous story, if one is so inclined to believe it, the reason no light reached the earth is because there was no such thing as light until Gen 1:3 (again, blowing your theory).
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
The sun, moon, and stars, supposedly, were not created until the fourth day:
Gen 1:14-19 - And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made 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. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
This is ridiculous story. Don’t you see that?
Perhaps the Bible itself is wrong. Oh, wait, you must be an inerrantist! Therefore it is necessary for you to make up all sorts of logically twisted, convoluted theories in order to make the Bible consistent. Never mind a plain reading of the text!
I get it now…
“without form” and “void” are basically the same as saying there was nothing.
Anyway, we have a pretty good geological record from the time of the formation of the earth to the evolution of homo sapiens to the agricultural revolution and the rise of civilization.
The earth was not in a “state of destruction” before the emergence of humans. It was quite thriving and active both geologically and ecologically long before we got here.
Where does Ezekiel say anything about an “age of Lucifer,” btw?
You wouldn’t be referring to this passage, would you?
Ezekiel 28:11-19
The word of the LORD came to me: 12 "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:
" ‘You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
ruby, topaz and emerald,
chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
sapphire, turquoise and beryl.
Your settings and mountings were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.
16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.
18 By your many sins and dishonest trade
you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out from you,
and it consumed you,
and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.
19 All the nations who knew you
are appalled at you;
you have come to a horrible end
and will be no more.’ "
I suspect this is the passage you’re talking about, but obviously it says nothing of “Lucifer” and speaks only of the King of Tyre who had a fall from grace. Whether this is a metaphorical story about pride or just a variant on Genesis, I don’t know (it’s probably both) but I think it’s a huge stretch to say it has anything to do with Lucifer…especially since the concept of Lucifer as a fallen angel is purely a Christian development and did not exist in ancient (or contemporary) Judaism.
Either way the result is the same. Whether the stars and moon were “created” on the 4th day or that is when the light was allowed back through. This is about what the whole Bible has to say on the matter and I seriously do not care what “really” happened. That is not what I am discussing.
Once again, it does not matter what your opinion if the text is. It doesn’t change what is indicated.
Try a plain reading of all of the text. And whether the Bible is wrong or right also has no place in this discussion.
No, I do not think that you do.
Well, Diogenes, I was going to take the position that Ezekiel was simply a deluded madman. But considering that Cig is an obvious inerrantist, perhaps your position will give him more food for thought.
Ok, so you’ve proven your keen ability to obfuscate. What is it, then, that we are discussing?
What is indicated is apparent from a plain reading of the text, not the Bible as a whole. Why do you insist on reading the Bible as whole, rather than simply a collection of various writings – which, of course, is what it really is.
I could not care less what you know or think you know about the earth’s geological history in regards to this discussion. This is about what the whole Bible indicates about “Creation”, nothing more, nothing less. You might as well be pointing out historical inaccuracies (perceived or otherwise) in a discussion of the Odyssey.
I already indicated what passage I was talking about, in fact I already quoted the text. Did you actually read the text? Yes, a parallel is being drawn between Lucifer and the king of Tyre but the details are about Lucifer. Do you seriously think that the king of Tyre was ever in the Garden of Eden? Was the king of Tyre ever an annointed cherub? Forget “annointed”, was he a cherub at all? Do you know what a cherub is?
Is that so? I suppose that the Jews were scratching their heads over this one then:
We are discussing what the canonical Biblical text has to say about “Creation”.
It doesn’t matter what you believe the intent to have been. This is like a discussion about Star Wars and you refuse to accept information from the sequels as retroactively affecting the story line. You could say “George Lucas didn’t intend for Darth Vader to be Luke Skywalker’s father in ‘Star Wars’ so he wasn’t.” You at best would only be partially correct with that statement.
They weren’t scratching their heads at all – Since it was obvious that Isaiah was talking about the king of Babylon:
Isa 14:3,4 On the day the LORD gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:
Are you really this ignorant, or are you just pretending?