Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David B · 12-30-2006, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajela

I think you've misheard 60 as 16...

The usual date for our Aboriginal prehistory is 40,000 years; but there have been some more recent discoveries that tentatively date that back as far as 60,000. Certainly no-one would go as recent as 16,000.

BTW, a snippet on the flood - I read recently that the word used for covering "all the land" is the same word - eretz - that is used to describe a single country. So, for instance, when god tells Abraham to leave the country, he just goes to Egypt, not to outer space... In other words, a local flood is perfectly reconcilable with even quite strong literalism. I'm not sure how accurate this is; I'm no biblical scholar, but lots of people here are, so they will correct me if I'm wrong

I wonder if something Malfunc was saying refers not to a local flood (of which there have been many) but to a general rise in sea levels following the ice melt as the ice age receded.

I understand that there were indeed lots of land bridges between the Islands around Australasia.

David B

goldenroad · 12-30-2006, 09:16 PM

Hmmm, there is much speculation on the authenticity of Genesis and no doubt it is correct about much but much is left to speculation.

Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that it doesn't in any way interfere with Christian doctrines.

Loomis · 12-30-2006, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldenroad

Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that it doesn't in any way interfere with Christian doctrines.

Sure it does.

Tangent · 12-30-2006, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldenroad

Hmmm, there is much speculation on the authenticity of Genesis and no doubt it is correct about much but much is left to speculation.

Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that it doesn't in any way interfere with Christian doctrines.

What the hell IS it correct about? The flaming sword?

As to the second point, Luke 3 traces the lineage of Jesus right to Adam. Is Luke wrong?

mickw · 12-30-2006, 10:38 PM

If there's no Eden, then there's no Fall.

If there's no Fall, then there is no need for the Crucifixion.

Like it or not, I think Christians are essentially stuck with the story.

Sven · 12-31-2006, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldenroad

Hmmm, there is much speculation on the authenticity of Genesis and no doubt it is correct about much but much is left to speculation.

Depends on how you define "much". The (historically) correct parts begin only very late, approximately with the prophets.

Quote:

Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that it doesn't in any way interfere with Christian doctrines.

Well, since Genesis is almost 100% myth, as is Moses and the so-called 10 commandments, there's little left to base Christianity upon.

But if you prefer "Love your neigbor as yourself" to the OT, you of course won't even need it.

purple_kathryn · 12-31-2006, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

Aside from the inaccuracy of your claim (pointed out by someone else already) how does walking between what is now an island and a peninsula lend credence to a worldwide flood, much less a worldwide flood which then receded?

I was under the impression a lot of land movement is to do with tetonic plates shifting

DBT · 12-31-2006, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajela

In other words, a local flood is perfectly reconcilable with even quite strong literalism.

But local flooding doesn't seem to be reconcilable with the literal biblical interpretation of God setting out to destroy all life on earth.
In biblical terms there would be no need for Noah, the Ark, gathering the animals, etc.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-30-2006, 09:16 PM	#32
goldenroad Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: standing behind you with a fire-poker Posts: 154	Hmmm, there is much speculation on the authenticity of Genesis and no doubt it is correct about much but much is left to speculation. Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that it doesn't in any way interfere with Christian doctrines.

12-30-2006, 10:38 PM	#35
mickw Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: NE OH Posts: 141	If there's no Eden, then there's no Fall. If there's no Fall, then there is no need for the Crucifixion. Like it or not, I think Christians are essentially stuck with the story.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.