A common example given of the Bible being false is the whole story of the Jews as a slaves in Egypt; it never happened. They weren’t enslaved in Egypt, and there was never any exodus from there.
And of course all the various physics-violating miracles in the Bible are certainly “at least partially outdated by scientific discovery accepted unanimously by global standards”.
You do know that THE BOOK was written by other humans and even they do not agree.
Your belief is not in God but other humans!
Man, it’s a good thing you’re made out of rubber, the way you must twist and bend to escape the obvious.
The people who wrote that book knew shit about the world they lived in.
They thought the sky was a dome with lights fixed to it. They didn’t know a universe existed.
And YES they meant a day when they wrote a day, because that’s what they believed happened. They knew shit about geology or evolution. They didn’t know the earth was that old or how it came to be.
You are pouring over texts that are 2000 years out of date, trying to find excuses why it isn’t correct.
That is the obvious, not “hmmm this is incorrect, so they must have meant something else”.
Why doesn’t it mean that? The Moon, Sun and stars are certainly in the universe. But if we look at your alternate options;
There are no stars in the sky; they’re visible in the sky, but that’s not where they are. Likewise the Sun. You could maybe make a case for the Moon. None of them are in the atmosphere, again, merely visible through it. And, while the Sun and Moon are in our solar system, no other stars are, again, just visible from there.
The problem with the waters argument is this;
[QUOTE=Genesis 9-10]
And God saith, Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so. And God calleth to the dry land Earth,’ and to the collection of the waters He hath called `Seas;’ and God seeth that [it is] good.
[/QUOTE]
It’s talking about seas. Of course, we have oceans and lakes and ponds and glaciers, etc., so “seas” isn’t an exact term. Basically we have to say it means that water, generally, was gathered together in larger bodies in some format. But that* is* true of the universe, so much as we know of it, not just the Earth. So we can certainly make a case that “water under the heavens” refers to all water in the universe - and a stronger one, too, since we have reality to back it up.
I never read much Hebrew, but I have read this part in Hebrew. (Even more beautiful than the best translation, btw.) It does say day, and it says evening and morning. Not to mention the importance of the Sabbath as the seventh day, which comes from Genesis and is not the seventh thousand year or whatever period.
In addition, the “days” in Genesis do not correspond to periods of equal time in the history of the universe. So you are claiming that day means something different in every verse. And also this jive about what day means only began after science demonstrated how old the universe really was.
You know about medieval cosmology, right? is there any indication at all that they knew how far away the stars really are? Why would heaven end at the solar system? God is infinite, right? Again, you are trying to reinterpret what is clearly there in light of scientific knowledge.
Luminary = shine by its own light. True of the sun, not of the moon. The Bible gets it wrong again.
Groucho: A 12 year old child could understand this. Run out and get me a 12 year old child; I can’t make head nor tail out of it.
Stars does not mean entire universe? Sorry, they knew about stars but not about galaxies - though they would show up as stars. What part of heaven is beyond the stars? Any indication that they thought there was anything beyond the stars, besides God’s home itself, which is more a Christian concept. (See Paradiso, which is pretty clear about this kind of cosmology.)
The Bible isn’t rubbish. It reflects the cosmology of people who lived a long time ago, and which was utterly incorrect. We are no doubt incorrect about lots of stuff also. I can see a kid say “you are telling me that 1 + 2 is not = 4? How arrogant!”
So, logical thinking is a trick? Figures. When my kids were 12 I taught them about religion by reading these very passages with them. I started by pointing out the obvious errors and contradictions, but they soon were able to do it by themselves, since they are smart kids. They are both now adults, and both atheists.
You are ignoring or laughing off thousands of years of Bible interpretation. How come nobody got your interpretation until Science showed them the way?
Do you realize how many thousands of scientific papers get published? It is not rampant. It is very rare. Mistakes and illogical conclusions are much, much more common, but screening them out is what peer review is for.
Piltdown man and …? Want to talk about all those predictions of the end of the world which never happened? All the fake relics? All the faked bleeding Jesuses?
Why don’t you tell us first what the Bible actually says. The date of Adam is really quite clear. Was that correct? did Adam and Eve and the Garden actually exist? Or does a year of the life of the patriarchs actually mean a thousand years? And if it says that A begat B, are you going to say that it really means A begat C begat D begat … begat B, because that makes the numbers work out. Did a global flood happen?
You may believe in the Bible, but you don’t appear to put much credence into the words written in the Bible.
BTW, which academic are you planning to talk to. They are hardly all the same. A theology professor at a Bible college is going to give a different answer than Richard Dawkins. It is no accident that except for a very few cases, most creationist academics are not biologists and most biologists (and all good ones) are not creationists. Even Behe is not a creationist.
So, you understand the Bible better than thousands of well trained theologians. Now that sounds kind of arrogant.
People are dropping the word religion a lot, but asking the question does God exist, holds much greater weight then just observing what humans have done with their beliefs the past thousands of years… No human being can explain how nothing became something; which is our universe and the incredibly complex world. What makes you so sure this is all even real? How do you know if what you see is really as it appears? Call him/her/it whatever you want but we have to accept there is a power out there out side of our understanding. War has come of religion because human beings can’t practice the one rule many of our religions share, and that is love.
If anything, the closest theory to who/what god is, that i find amusing and as close as it gets to the truth:
Aliens from elsewhere came to earth
They were extremely smart, and used monkeys and apes to boost them into super monkeys and apes, called humans.
They believed that their creation, the humans will do great things.
They left the planet to let humans grow and develop on their own.
mutations happen, environment shapes different races in different places, etc etc, but we are the same species.
Our god is our ancient ancient ancestor, which are aliens.
not a bad theory? I wouldnt mind having alien great great grandparents.
Interestingly, the asian culture is heavily influenced by the belief that they are descended from the dragons o.o maybe we had dragon ancestors!. I wanna be a dragon…
You are correct, Unfortunately the rest of your post is you, a human, attempting to explain the universe and our incredibly complex world by attributing it to some mystical higher power that you have no possible way of demonstrating exists.
In the beginning there was nothing…including rules that would preclude something coming from nothing.
That was easy.
Because it is self consistent and beyond my ability to dream up on my own. And because there’s no point in thinking otherwise, unless and until evidence comes up that it isn’t real.
No, we don’t “have to”. I believe no such thing.
Garbage. War comes from religion because slaughtering and oppressing people is an effective means of spreading and protecting religious dogma, and that’s the only real purpose any religion has. And there’s nothing particularly profound or peaceful about “love”.
Hahaha!
wait, you’re not serious are you?
A voice of wisdom in the midst of confusion.
In the beginning…the laws of physics did not apply. So something could indeed come from nothing. 
that is a scary thought.
‘nothing’ does not exist.
You should have seen my bank account two days ago.
It does not exist inside the universe. But if the universe is/was expanding, what is/was it expanding into? It had to be nothingness, as the theory goes. There is also the possibility that the universe is/was expanding into an energy “field” of some sort.
But the possibility of nothingness exists. (If you have faith. )
One has to be in existence in order to exist. So there fore it is impossible for nothing to exist…
If the laws of physics don’t apply, why does something have to be in existence in order to exist? You are taking the fundamental rules of our universe and applying them to something outside of that universe.
Also, if the laws of physics don’t exist (and the basic newtonian theories don’t apply, thus no conservation of energy) then you shouldn’t be bound to needing constituents elements being in existence in order to react and make something.
Evidence that anything outside of our universe exists?
If there is anything outside our universe, there cannot be ‘nothing’.
Nothing is a ‘concept’, but in reality ‘nothing’ is an impossibility.
What do you mean with ‘outside’ the universe?