Quote:
Originally posted by CSflim
You'd think if you were writing the most importrtant book ever written, you would be more careful about making it clear where you were analogising, and when you were speaking literally.
Seems like a rather large over-sight to me, and a potential source of endless confuson.
|
If someone was writing specifically for us and knew how we looked at things, yes. But the Bible - especially the Old Testament - started out as oral tradition and was eventually written down. Not to mention, like I said, that at the time it was written that was the norm for writings like it. People expected teachings to have a mix of direct literal instruction and allegorical instruction. Much like when we pick up a fiction book today it doesn't need to say in the beginning "this is fiction," but, instead, we simply know it is fiction because of the way in which it is written.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sledge
Er. I don't think they walk away because you've trounced them with your infallible logic. I think they're confused by your question because it has nothing to do with the Bible at all. That's like entering a police station and saying "I'd like mine medium-rare, please."
The Bible doesn't talk about dinosaurs. Was it supposed to? Not many Christians I know deny the existence of dinosaurs. I guess you're talking about young-Earth creationists. But your question won't do anything but annoy the majority of Christians, who don't see what dinosaurs have to do with Christianity as they know and live it.
|
A very good point. For example, to use myself as an example, I believe that there is intelligent life on other planets (no I don't believe they've ever visited us, but I think it's arrogant to think we're alone in the universe), yet aliens are never mentioned in the Bible. Why? Because they're meaningless. The Bible is a book meant to explain the relationship between God and humans. It is not meant as a history book and that's why people who use it as such run into crazy debates like "where did the dinosaurs come from" and it's not meant as a scientific journal and that's why there's no need to mention aliens, etc. Whether there are aliens or not does not change the fundamental relationship between God and man that the Bible's purpose is to express.
And, yes, I believe the people this thread pertains to are young-earth creationists.
Quote:
Originally posted by woody3rd
Just to throw this in the mix, while I was in the Army, I talked to a chaplin about this and he stated that according to the bible the earth is only 10,000 years old. He believed that any "fossils" that are out there are just man-made items used to discredit the bible. After that comment, I ended the conversation and respectfully removed myself from his presence.
|
Good call. That's a pretty rediculous statement in my opinion, and thankfully there are plenty of religions who are not so close-minded to scientific fact as to actually believe the Earth is 10,000 years old. No we can't prove it is or isn't because no one is around, but there's no sense in ignoring what all the clues point to.
Quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
I seem to recall hearing about a freshly laid chicken egg carbon dated as being several thousand years old. Anyone know what I am talking about?
|
I don't, but I do know that carbon dating was found to have a flaw years ago. It turned out that some sort of bacteria or something could create a thin film on objects setting off the dating process. Once that was discovered though it became much more accurate since they can just remove the bacteria. Generally speaking, I believe carbon dating to be accurate, but obviously it is not 100% and should be taken with a grain of salt since, for all we know, there could be some other bacteria that we haven't even noticed sets off the dating yet.
Quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
On the other other other hand, has anyone noticed how Genesis mentions other people of the world at the time when Adam and Eve had only had Cain and Abel? Maybe god made a new brand of human 10,000 years ago and everybody is right. Big Bang and Creation.
It's all just speculation, might as well make it interesting
Peace be with you,
G.
|
That IS interesting - and surprisingly to myself, it's something I had never considered before. Genesis recounting of the creation of the universe and Earth would still have to be allegorical - and I refuse to consider otherwise anyway since I know this was a major instructional method used in the time it was written - but it would allow for Adam & Eve to be a literal truth. However, if God felt the need to create them seperately from the rest of the humans then I highly doubt they would be encouraged or willing to breed with the pre-existing humans. So, no, I don't think it's really a logical possibility. Thanks for making me think about it though - I had never considered that.
Anyways, sorry, I Was thinking out loud there
