Theoretical Bull

Hey everyone,

First of all, I want to thank terribleone for the compliments and Roland for the wonderful suggestion about temperature. I'll be sure to substitute that in if I ever use these questions again. Also thank you to Godless Wonder for the info on SN1987a. Fascinating!

I want to address some of the answers Vinnie provided. Thank you for taking the time to read and reply. It's gratifying.

I asked:

1) Before God began the creation, was He the only existing being in the universe? Were there angels and heaven as well, or were they created with/after everything else?

You replied:

The universe is part of creation. Christian doctrine says God created ex nihilo.

I was referring to the much broader definition of the word "universe". Not just stars and planets. Essentially I mean "everything" or "all of existence". If God exists, then he is a part of the "universe".

I asked:

(1a) If they were not created with/after everything else, had heaven and angels existed eternally alongside God? Or is there an entire other creation before the one in Genesis which was not accounted for?

You replied:

Bible doesn't say. Don't know when and where. Whats the point?

That's no answer. Keep in mind, these really are questions on Genesis. Some of them are rhetorical and meant to prove a point, (which I'll address more specifically later) and some are plain ol' inquiries. This was an inquiry.

I asked:

(2) God created daylight before he created the sun, moon or stars. Where did the daylight come from, if not from the sun?

You replied:

God must have made some form of artificial light until he created the sun. Unless he made the sun already but it simply didn't appear from the earth viewers perspective yet. It did that on day four.

(Your reply to Question 3 was also "The artificial light source")

I don't understand your M.O. For questions like 1 and 20c (which I'll address later) you appear very adamant about not making assumptions when it comes to Biblical vagueness. Yet for Question 2 and many others to come, you have no problem positing your own pseudo-scientific solution. This seems inconsistent to me.

I asked:

(2a) Most Biblical literalists will maintain that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old. However, some stars are known to be millions of light years away. How long did it take for the light of the stars to reach the earth once they were created? Millions of years, correct? If this were true, wouldn't we still be waiting for the images of the stars to arrive?

You replied:

Not if the star light was created in transit. God did not do this to deceive us. He made the stars so that we could look up in awe and be reminded of him. What good would they be if we couldn't see them?

There appears to be quite a bit of confusion when it comes to God's reasons for creating the stars. Genesis 1:17 maintains quite clearly that God created them for a practical purpose. You, however, seem to believe it was for sentimental reasons.

Also: Since the question is scientific in nature, could you explain exactly how starlight can be created "in transit"? This isn't so much a challenge as it is raw curiosity.

I asked:

(4) In Genesis 1:6-8, God talks about the sky being an expanse between the water below it and the water above it. To what "water above the sky" is Genesis referring?

You replied:

This is scientifically correct. Earth started covered in oceas (water below) above it we have the atmosphere which would have contained more water vapor then (waters above). The account is given from the perspective of an earthbound observer (see verse 2) between the waters. THis perspective shift is important.

The water vapor to which you are referring would be in the sky, not above it. I'm sure we're all aware of how condensation works, but that's not what this question is about. Genesis 1:6-8 refers to water above the sky. You didn't address the question. If the verse had referenced water below and above ground, then I wouldn't be asking in the first place.

I asked:

(5) Genesis 1:16 says that God created "two lights" to govern the day and night. But we all know that the moon isn't it's own light at all. It's merely a reflection of the light from the sun. Why would the Bible say something so scientifically inaccurate?

You replied:

Its phenomenological and anthropomorphic language. One does not have to generate its own "light" internal to be called a light source. Thats what it is, a source of light. Thats implicit.

The dictionary defines "source" as a "point of origin", hence the problem. The moon is absolutely not a "point of origin" for light. Maybe the error is in the translation. But then I wonder, what other errors are we overlooking?

I asked:

(6) Genesis 1:17 says that God created the stars and placed them in the sky to give light upon the earth. However, under the best possible conditions, only about 5,000 stars can be seen by the naked eye. There are hundreds of billions of stars in our relatively small galaxy alone, and there are about a hundred billion known galaxies. If the stars were created to light the earth, why do only a tiny fraction out of the trillions of existing stars in the universe do their job?

You replied:

Other stars serve other purposes. Whats your objection. The Bible is speaking about the stars seen from earth since that is where the oerspective is given from.

First of all, from a Biblical standpoint, what other purposes do other stars serve?

You ask what my objection is. I don't have one (Heck, it's your belief, not mine). I just notice a discrepancy between what the Bible claims, and what we know from science. It's very simple: Genesis says stars were created for Purpose X. Well, less than a billionth of those stars actually serve purpose X. My question is, "Whut up with that?"

Also, I believe earlier you said the following: "What good would [stars] be if we couldn't see them?" I believe you've just made my point.

I asked:

(7) Genesis 1:26 says that God made man in His "image and likeness". If man has the same "image and likeness" as God, wouldn't this mean that God has hands, feet, eyes, ears, and genitalia just like mankind?

You replied:

No. It means patterned after him, with free will, cognitive functions and true power. We are theopomorphic. God is not anthropomorphic.

For one, where does the Bible specify this? I think you're taking creative license again.

Secondly, this is a huge reach. You're saying that having an "image" of God means being patterned after him. You listed three examples. Tell me what else we have in common with God, because I'll bet you I can list more differences than you can similarities. Adam and Eve were depicted as naive, ignorant, scared, powerless, corruptible... shall I go on? That's some image we share.

Also, by answering the way you did, you conceded that something about Genesis is indeed metaphorical. Like I've said before, isn't it possible then, that other parts of Genesis could be metaphorical as well?

I asked:

(9) God told Adam and Eve that they cannot eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If Adam and Eve did not possess the knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit, how could they know that God was good, and the serpent was evil, which undoubtedly would have been necessary to fully understand why obeying God's order above the serpent's suggestion was the right decision?

You replied:

One does not need a complete description of something to understand rudimentary knowledge ofi. Far from being a contradiction, the text may simply implicitly assume this.

You're thinking like someone with a conscience; with knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil (as well you should). It's difficult to step outside of that, but try for a moment. Adam and Eve reportedly had no concept of these things. None, whatsoever. When God says "Don't do X", obedience has absolutely no applicable meaning to them because they cannot see it as something "good" or "right" as opposed to "evil" or "wrong".

This isn't a contradiction or a logical impossibility. It's just nonsensical. Something primitive authors are very capable of.

I asked:

(9a) Also, why would an omnibenevolent god want mankind not to know the difference between right and wrong?

You replied:

THe full scale version? To not endure pain, suffering, sickness, death and so on.

A whole can of worms I'm not going to open, mostly because this is a Bible Criticism thread and I want to stay on topic. But really, could someone please explain the logistics of this to me? :banghead:

I asked:

(10) Genesis 3:1 has the serpent (or snake) talking to Eve about the Tree of Knowledge. Since snakes do not have vocal cords and are thus incapable of speaking, how would this be scientifically possible?

You replied:

The devil posessed the snake. Miracles by definition are above natural law.

No comment.

I asked:

(11) Genesis 3:7 says that once Adam and Eve ate from the fruit, they realized that they were naked, and hid from God because they felt "shame". If it was inherently wrong for human beings to walk around naked, then why did God create them that way in the first place? Why would He want them to do something that He considered to be wrong?

You replied:

Babies often go around naked with no shame. Older people (except for cultists) do not do this though. Walk through the mall naked if you think the Bible is wrong here. You have the shame. Why should you feel shame? After all we are born naked? The sense of shame has to be explained and we have a great solution right here!

That's all well and good, but it doesn't in any way address the actual question which was: Why would God want Adam and Eve to do something that he considered to be morally wrong?

I asked:

(12) Genesis 3:8 says that God was "walking" in the Garden, "in the cool of the day". Is the word "walking" used metaphorically or literally?

You replied:

Angels often represent God. He must have appeared to his children in a tangible, ostensive form they would recognize.

Angels? This is another one of your extra-biblical solutions. The text says that "God" was walking in the Garden. Not an angel. God.

I asked:

(13) Genesis 3:9-13 has God asking questions like "Where are you?", "Is this true?" and "Who told you that you were naked?" Why would an omniscient being need to ask such questions? Wouldn't God already know the answer?

You replied:

God was throwing out a test to Adam. He of course knew where he was!

A test is simply an inquiry into the status of the party being tested. If God is omniscient enough to know the answer, wouldn't he also be omniscient enough to know Adam's answer? Beings with infinite knowledge don't need to conduct tests!

I asked:

(14) If God were all-powerful and all-knowing, and didn't want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, why wouldn't He simply prevent them from doing so?

You replied:

He made free will. Being all powerful indicates doiing what is "possible". Round circles = impossible. Free willed beings with not choice is the same.

And the next questions was:

(14a) If your answer is that God doesn't want to violate our freewill, why in Genesis 3:22-24 did He see to it that Adam and Eve couldn't have access to the other forbidden tree in the Garden, the Tree of Life?

To which you replied:

He didn't ant man to live forever since he sinned. THe text states this. Read it.

Wait a minute. So man would have lived forever had Adam and Eve not sinned. Then why was there a forbidden Tree of Life prior to the original sin, anyway? Why were these trees even created? My head is spinning... Must lay down.

I asked:

(15) In Genesis 3:22, God says, "The man has now become like one of us". Who is the "us" to which God is referring? (Note that the words "one of us" is used in virtually every translation of Genesis, ranging from the NIV to the KJV to the ASV, so the use of a plural is apparently not in question among Biblical scholars.)

You replied:

The trinity or the heavenly host of Angels or God likes to refer to himself in the plural. I do the same.

Okay, I'll buy that. Although, I have serious concerns about you referring to yourself in the plural.

I asked:

(16) Adam and Eve had two children, Cain and Abel, one of whom was killed. Genesis 4:17 says that Cain "lay with his wife". Who was Cain's wife and where did she come from?

You replied:

Adam and Eve lived hundeds and hundreds of years and made lots and lots of babies besides the two recorded. He may have had a ton of potential hotties.

Again, where do you get this from? What reasons do you have for supposing this? (By the way, there were not just two recorded children of Adam and Eve. There were more, but they were all born after Cain met his wife.)

I asked:

(17) Genesis 5 is devoted entirely to the genealogies of Adam. Everyone mentioned in this chapter lives to be at least 700 years old. How can you scientifically justify this?

You replied:

There possibly was a supernova eruption which modified our metabolism just at the same time in history God shortened the age span or God did it himself through some means.

Metabolism-modifying supernova eruptions. I'm not even going to touch this one.

I asked:

(18) Genesis 6:6 says that God saw the wickedness of mankind and "regretted" creating them. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why would he create something that he knew he'd regret later?

You replied:

It was still the greater good.

I don't understand how this answers the question. What was the greater good? And for whom?

I asked:

(19) The Ark was to be 450 feet long, (Genesis 6:15), a generally small size considering there are cruiseliners nowadays much larger than this. However, the largest wooden ships ever built have only been 300 feet, and they required diagonal iron strapping for support. And still, the leakage was so bad that they had to be pumped and repaired several times in a year. How could Noah construct a wooden ship, at least one hundred feet longer than any that has been built since, able to withstand fourteen months of some of the harshest weather conditions ever heard of, with no way to pump, repair or dock it?

You replied:

First Noah may have had lots of help as he may have been wealuth and the ship did not need to sail or propel itself or anything. All it needed to do was float. Also I am sure God would have aided Noah's faithfulness and helped stop leaks.

I don't understand how the need to sail or propel is relevant to this question. Obviously propellers don't enter into this equation since they weren't invented until quite a few hundred years later. But sails wouldn’t be that much of a liability and besides, I was never under any assumption that the ark would have one.

As for God's intervention, stopping a few leaks is an understatement. There would have to have been nothing short of a water-proof force field around the entire ark for it to have stayed afloat under such conditions. I'm just thinking such divine help would have at least been mentioned.

I asked:

(20) How could Noah have been able to fit seven pairs of every clean animal on earth, seven pairs of every flying species on earth, and two of every other species on earth (Genesis 7:2-3), into an ark that was only 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high? Consider the following:

You ignored:

-There exist about 4,630 living species of mammal. That's 9,410 individual animals on the Ark (Including Noah's family and about 30 "clean" animals).
-About 9,675 living species of bird. That's 135,450 more animals to add to the ark.
-About 5,275 living species of reptile. That's 10,550 more animals.
-About 4,400 living species of amphibian. That's 8,800 more.
-About 55,000 living species of arachnid. That's another 110,000.
-And finally, an overwhelming 970,000 species of insect, ranging from a centimeter to six inches in size. That's almost 2 million more to fit aboard the ark.
-Also, consider the fact that the number of known extinct species are more than double the ones living. If Noah truly did take at least two of every animal at the time, the amount of animals calculated above would have to increase at least 200%. That makes a rough total of about 6,642,630 animals to fit aboard the Ark.

If we divide the amount of animals above into the volume of a 450x75x45 foot ark (18,225,000 cubic inches) we'd have about 2.7 inches of space for each animal. This is not including walls, walkways, food, supplies or ventilation. (Yes, I did research and calculate this all myself. I didn't just find the numbers on some suspicious, biased website...I was bored, gimme a break!) Anyway, back to the question: How can you scientifically justify these mathematical absurdities without straying from the exact context and word-usage in the Bible?

And replied with:

This has been worked out by scientists like Morris, Gish, Hovind, et al for years. Hovind muight not be good at filing his taxes, but he knows his science!

This is no answer. It's a cop-out, but more importantly a huge argumentative and logical fallacy called Argumentum ad verecundiam, or "Appeal to Authority".

If you want to claim that someone else whom you respect has come to a conclusion in your favor, that's fine. But I've given you the facts. I've done the math for you, and even showed you the steps. The fact is, Noah would have had to fit at the very least 6,642,630 animals into 1,518,750 cubic feet of space. Factoring in walls, walkways, supplies, ventilation, food and breeds, this essentially becomes a physical impossibility. It's right there in front of you.

Unless you can show me how these people you're citing came to the conclusions they did, it's just another bald assertion and you have no case. 'Nuff said.

I asked:

(20a) The issue of breeds also arises. Many species have several breeds to them: Horses, dogs, cats, etc. For example, there are 138 pure breeds of domestic canine. If Noah had only two dogs on the ark to represent the canine species, (even if they were different breeds) they would have mated to create a mix of the two, which would have had to mate with it's siblings (eeeeeew!) to spawn more of the same mix, and so on. How could the wide range of animal breeds come about if the only mating option for a particular breed of animal is another of the exact same breed?

You replied:

A couple different types of dog breeds is all thats required.

I think you may not have understood the problem. Explain to me, step by step, how two or three breeds of canine can turn into 138 distinct and unique breeds in such a short amount of time? The fact is, all breeds of canine would have to have been present on the Ark in order to exist today. Evolution just doesn't work that fast.

I asked:

(20b) Dinosaurs. There are 300 known species of dinosaur, and counting. Were they all on board? How does scientific creationism fit them into the whole "ark equation"?

You replied:

Baby dinosaurs. Given humans lives so much longer the animal aging process was probably also slower so baby dinos would stay small the whole duration.

Dinosaurs were the largest group of animals in history. And even infant dinosaurs can be huge. 600 of those suckers on one boat together will take up quite a bit of space, which just adds another strike to the credibility of the Ark story.

I asked:

(20c) Microorganisms. Bacteria, viruses, protozoa, etc. Some cannot survive without a living host. Others need not only a living host, but one of a specific species. Did the animals on the Ark (including Noah and his family) have to play host to thousands of microorganisms in order for them to survive the flood?

You replied:

These things were not mentioned in the account.

That's right, they weren't. Hence the question.

(The problems posed in Question 21, 21a, 22 and 27 were all addressed with "God-made-it-all-go-away" logic, and I suppose it wouldn't be too productive to try and argue these points, so I'll just skip them for now.)

I asked:

(23) A few inches of rain a day would be considered a storm. For rain to have covered the entire planet so that the top of the highest mountain (Everest?) was completely submerged by twenty feet (Genesis 7:20) in only forty days, there would have had to be more than 722 feet of rainfall per day all across the entire planet (another extremely long and complicated calculation available upon request). This would be like having hundreds of billions of fire hoses completely covering the entire sky, aiming down on the earth at full blast. Aside from the fact that any ship under these conditions would be torn to shreds and submerged immediately, where did all this water come from? And where did it go? The atmosphere simply couldn't provide the condensation for this to be possible. How do you justify this apparent scientific impossibility?

You replied:

A water canopy possible. The earth was smoother then. Have you considered that the majority of them and the highest mountains only arose during the flood.

I don't understand how this addresses the question and/or solves the problem.

And no, I haven't considered that the highest mountains arose in the flood because, well, I don't believe there was a global flood.

I asked:

(24) If it were true that every land animal left behind was killed during the flood, we would expect the fossil record to be a chaotic, sporadic mess. Human, dog and horse bones would be mixed right in with dinosaur bones. However, what we do observe is quite the opposite. We have a neatly layered set of strata that appear to be in chronological order, showing the evolutionary development from early, simple creatures up to modern, complex creatures. Why aren't dog skeletons mixed in with Stegosaurus? Why aren't lion skeletons lying next to Woolly Mammoths? Is it possible that they were not all alive (or even killed) at the same time?

You replied:

Coincidence given the volume of land we have studied verses the larger amount we have not mapped.

Coincidence?

Let me get this straight: You think the fact that we have a neatly layered set of strata that appear to be in chronological order, showing the evolutionary development from early, simple creatures up to modern, complex creatures... is a coincidence? I'm speechless.

I asked:


(25) Can scientific creationism and flood geology account for the thousands of natural phenomenon in the geological column and fossil records which overwhelmingly indicate an old earth, but would be impossible to create in the span of a one-year flood? For example:

-Varves
-Coral
-Hematite layers
-Limestone deposits
-Chalk
-Magma
-Angular unconformities
-Granite batholiths
-Tree rings
-Ice caps, etc., etc.

You replied:

Of course it can.

Wonderful! Let's hear it.

I asked:

(26) Anyone who has ever owned a tropical aquarium will tell you how difficult it is to keep marine life alive. Most fish can only live in very specific conditions. Some need cool, fresh water. Some need warm, brackish water. Others need ocean water, and a few need water even saltier. For many known species of fish, it would be impossible to survive under the flood conditions described in Genesis. How could all of the marine life around today have survived such deadly and extreme conditions?

You replied:

The flood need not have been as intense as you suggested (See above).

I disagree. However, the "extreme conditions" to which I'm referring are not necessarily gigantic crashing waves and the ocean floor being shaken about like a snow-dome. All it would take to kill some species of fish is a simple change in the pH balance or water temperature, which would undoubtedly occur no matter how gently the rain is falling.

I asked:

(26a) Sensitive underwater plant life such as tropical coral can only survive in shallow water because they require constant exposure to the sun in order to survive. How is it possible that coral and other sensitive marine life like it exist today if they would have undoubtedly been wiped out by a global flood?

You replied:

See above. You are assuming current topology was the same before the flood.

Yes, I am. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?

I asked:

(29) Genesis 10:5 and 10:20 describe how the different cultures of the world at the time were distinct with their own clans, territories and languages. Yet not too much later, Genesis 11:1 says "Now the whole world had one language and a common speech". Isn't this a blatant contradiction?

You replied:

Chapter 11 is chronologically erlier than chapter 10 and gives reason for such diversity. The literary features of this book are beautiful. Here we see a nice inverted or hourglass structure i nthe narrative.

Okay, that makes sense to me. I'll buy it.

I asked:

(30) In Genesis 11:4, the men of the world began to build a tower that would "reach into the heavens". This apparently worries God, since He believes that anything men plan to do will be possible for them if they speak one language (Genesis 11:6-7). However, today we have translators, people who bilingual, and distinct nations in which almost everyone is capable of speaking the same language. Yet even still we would not be capable of building a tower which reaches "into the heavens". This being the case, would it be accurate to say that God, in this particular passage, was incorrect?

You replied:

Misunderstanding. They become proud so God scattered them. Its where the saying "pride before the fall" originally came from. The Tower of Babel which archeologists have actually found and dated! Reconstructing whats left convinces experts it was as big as the Sears Tower!

If the Bible really is to be interpreted literally, then what must we infer from the following passage?

"The Lord said: 'If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.'" --Genesis 11:6-7

There is no indication from the above passage that God was punishing pride. This was an act of prevention, plain and simple. No misunderstanding here. The questions still stands.

Regarding the claim that archaeologists found the Tower of Babel's remains, could you please start providing references? All these unfounded claims are driving me nuts.

Okay, that's it. I'm done now, I promise. It's late and I'm starting to get cranky (as evidenced by the increasing sarcastic tone found in my replies). So that's my cue to hit the sack.

Thanks for your patience, everyone. And thanks for your time, Vinnie.

-Scotty

PS. (This is so fun.)

Theoretical Bull

One more thing...

I seem to be getting the criticism from many of you that arguing scientific impossibilities with a Creationist who believes in an all-powerful god who can snap his fingers and fix anything, is futile.

For the record, I couldn't agree more.

However, there is a very specific context for the questions I posted. I didn't just write them for any Christian or Creationist. They were originally written to my friend, who had told me in prior conversations that if I were to point out just one scientific or logical possibility (like the ones I hope I provided), she'd have enough reason to start doubting her belief that the Bible is infallible and divinely inspired. This doesn't mean my friend would give up her faith in God, but she was very convinced that a belief in the Christian God could be arrived at through good ol' fashioned scientific method. My questions were simply a challenge to that comment.

Trust me, I'm not an idiot. (Well, not much.) And I know how to pick my battles. I wouldn't ask just anyone those questions and expect results. There has to be a certain set of shared presuppositions before most of these inquiries are even applicable.

My friend and I shared those presuppositions.

Anyway, I hope I cleared up any confusion. Thanks again.

-Scotty

GakuseiDon

That's not quite it. It isn't that you are arguing about scientific impossibilities. It's just that most of your questions aren't about science at all. Adding a few scientific-sounding words to a question doesn't make it scientific. You're basically arguing theology, and, as you appear to have little understanding of that (from what I can tell from your answers) you're not going to go so well. You're obviously ill-informed about the standard answers to Genesis problems. You maybe able to convince a creationist who is also as ill-informed, but that's about it.

To argue against scientific creationism (and I've done it), you really need to stick to one line of questioning, and stay away from the Bible altogether. Your response to Q26a is promising. Put the science burden of proof on the creationist. That's the weak under-belly of scientific creationism. You'll need to learn alot more about the Bible before you can use theology to attack it.

Go through your first few questions again, and tell me what the science that is being addressed is? What theories or experiments would you construct to prove or disprove your points? Perhaps then you'll see where I am coming from.

GakuseiDon

Heck, why let Vinnie have all the fun?

The Bible doesn't really say, so we can't know for sure. It probably isn't important in regards to our salvation anyway. What scientific principle is being broken IYO?

Why isn't that an answer? Do you know everything about science? No Christian believes that every answer is in the Bible. It isn't fair for you to assume this.

The Bible actually says "Let there be light" before the sun was built. Therefore the light had to be an artificial light source. It's a valid assumption from the text. What is wrong with that?

I can't see how this is a problem. Instead of God creating light emanating from the surface of a sun 100 light-years away, He created the sun with the light already 100 light-years from the surface of that sun. Are you saying that this is beyond God's ability?

Please show me the verse that says that it couldn't have been water vapor above the ground. Obviously "firmament" was how the authors understood the concept. They used the explanation that they best understood at the time. It wasn't important for their salvation, so God didn't need to explain that the water was being held as vapor.

Where does the Bible say that the moon gives out its own light? The moon is a light in the sky. That isn't scientifically inaccurate. The definition of "moon-light" is "light of the moon".

I don't know. What scientific principle is being broken here?

I actually think this is implied somewhere in the Bible (in one of the Psalms?). Anyway, what scientific principle is being broken here?

Yes, it could. Should this be a problem for scientific creationists, though? Is it breaking some scientific principle?

Glass*Soul

Vinnie: Three of your answers to the questions regarding the flood, when taken rogether, are giving me problems.

If your purpose is to argue that the flood was not as intense as was suggested, your argument that the highest mountain ranges on earth were possibly being heaved up at the same time creates another problem. How do we figure the severity of the earthquakes and ensuing tsunamis that would result? (Can anyone here answer this for me?) Instead of a gentle, shallow flood that might allow for the survival of delicate coral reefs, I am now attempting to imagine a worldwide catastrophe beyond comprehension.

Glass*Soul

Is the debate on this board? May I have a link?

MachineGod

Well, you will have to understand first that the bible has been copied and recopied, and translated and retranslated over many, many centuries. The first few books of the bible, are understood to be written by Moses himself in Hebrew that looked like this… שטר×? פורס×? (כל הזכויות

Even still the bible is very vague in some areas, and of course can be debated greatly. I for one, considering the above, am very forgiving as to the contents and translation of what I read, because of how much a single word can make so much difference.

Once, having considered myself a very strong atheist, I continually tried to use science and logic to objectively dismiss the ideas of theist and the bible. But the more I ridiculed and pointed and tried to throw out the ideas of biblical connections with science, the more I found that would not let me dismiss it so easily.

I just felt it important for you to know that I did not come by these assumptions lightly. I fought them every step of the way until, one day, it seems, I could not dismiss the implications of the bible, and that there “must� be truth in the bible.

Again, these connections, of course, are very debatably, but you asked, so I’m telling you how I have seen them.

To make all this clearer, and I hope you can forgive me, but I would like to go through the “6-day� creation verse by verse to give a clear picture, and I will try to answer the questions you wrote as they apply, and then answer some questions directly. I’m sure some questions will arise, but I will try to be a thorough as possible.

So without further ado…


1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Stay with me on this…Notice here the big PERIOD after the sentence. This is VERY important. People have looked past this for God knows how long. This right here is the entire evolution of the universe. The so-called big bang, the sun, moons, planets, stars, galaxies, ect. Ect. This may be considered, if you would like, as when the angels where created. However, it doesn’t speak of that in scripture to my knowledge.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
First of all, the word “void� is said to be a mistranslation. The derived meaning of the Hebrew word means “corrupt� or “spoiled�, while the word “form� could have also been transliterated as “without order�. Nevertheless I will let the original words stand. Also notice that he never has to commanded that water be created, it’s already there.
Anyway, something obviously happened here. This is very metaphorical, and also very speculative as to what it could have been. However, some will argue that this is a cataclysm of a comet that stuck earth nearly destroying it, scattering a large portion of it mass into space that eventually formed to moon. While some others will argue that this is the cataclysm of the dinosaur. The asteroid that slammed into earth, with the force of 10,000 nuclear bombs, spilling ash and rock covering the sky of the whole earth, heat blast incinerating, and freezing in a nuclear winter, and melting the ice caps through the green house effect that followed. There may also have been much more water placed on the earth during an impact, such as when the comets hit Jupiter and we detected huge amounts of H2O in the explosions. The other thing is that it never says whether or not the “water� is frozen or not.
I will try to give theoretical implications to both these events because the first would have happened much earlier than the dinosaur cataclysm.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

This is unknown as to what the light could have been. I cannot explain this scientifically. But I am quite sure that we aren’t just talking about a day like we know a day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Here it talks about the water again. And again it makes no distinction as to whether the “water� was liquid, frozen, or vapor. If there was an Ice Age in the second verse, and melted during a green house effect, then the dividing could be the vaporizing of some of the excess water, while leaving some as liquid. I think it could also be talking about the stabilization of an atmosphere.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

This further coincides with the idea that the earth was created in the FIRST VERSE. It never says here that he created the land. It only says that it “appeared� when the waters abated. Again, some of the land may have still have been covered with ice (water), and able to be walked on, until this time.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

At such time, considering where we are theoretically at this point, a greenhouse effect would have supported such things. Along with the unknown light source, which may have been just the dimness of light that radiated through clouds that covered the whole sky of the earth.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

This might be explained as the simple clearing of clouds in the sky. Remember, if Moses was just writing what he saw, how would he, at that time, explain what he saw? Saying “two great lights� isn’t that distressing. Further, it doesn’t necessarily say that the stars were to give light upon the earth, it merely says, he made them “also�. However, he had already divided the light from the dark on the first “day�, but if the second verse was to be the comet cataclysm then the moon might be nicely formed by now, along with all the above considered, to make further distinction between the day and night on earth. Again “the evening and the morning were the whatever day� shouldn’t be taken literally as we know a day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

This could be the evolution of life. Remember though, evolution, is still only a “Theory�. Anyway, if you are one to accept the theory of evolution, you will notice that the above starts with the sea life as in the theory of evolution. And, since apparently water was already here, from the first and second verse, and throughout, “all� life, at least sea dwelling, may not have been destroyed. The fowl in the air could be the evolution of some surviving dinosaur life, such as the fossil evidence of “winged� sea creatures. Unless you prefer the comet cataclysm instead of the dinosaur cataclysm.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

This would be further evolution if you accept that theory. It coincides, again, with life starting in the sea and evolving to land. Such as the known fish, who are alive today, that can crawl out onto land and breath oxygen.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

If you believe that you are really here, and you are, then you HAD to come from somewhere. There are only two possibilities. We evolved, or was magically created the way we are. Since we are talking about the relation of science here, lets consider evolution as the correct theory. If we evolved then, as it says, all mankind evolved here. Male and female both, forget about Adam and Eve for now. Both were created, it says nothing of Adam, and I’ll back that up in just a bit. On the other hand if we were indeed magically created, then I’d say a being such as God is a strong likelihood. With that said, I’ll move on to address one of your questions.

Many believe that God is a being who’s existence is outside the known electromagnetic spectrum, and therefore outside the visible spectrum, which is but one ten thousandths of a percent of the known electromagnetic spectrum. He would have no “physical� form, meaning he is not made up of matter. He would have to be, at the best of human conception, a concentrated energy force we can’t see. If that energy form was to have a shape that you could see, it may have the image or likeness of a human being. That is not to say genitals, because that is a characteristic that is different among men and women, while both are unto his likeness. Further, think about how some people characterize what an intelligent alien race would look like, such as sci-fi films and so forth. Those are images or likenesses of human characteristics. So in terms of the likeness of God, it is a pretty broad statement that could simply include our emotions, and basic form.

I would also like to point out something else here. Who in the HECK, is God talking to? Some believe that, because God is a Trinity, (i.e. The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost), that Christ has always been, even before his physical form, in which he is talking to. And some will suggest that this (Christ) is the “unknown� Light in the so-called first day, as it refers to him as numerous times throughout the bible. Others think it is the angels he his talking to.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

No science involved, only the idea that God somehow told them, or instilled instinct.

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

You will have to notice here that it never says “And the evening and the morning were the seventh day.� Throughout all, until here, it has been very consistent with that, but for some reason this seventh day is never concluded. Why?

The entire second Chapter, might, be considered in the seventh day. It never concludes it as I pointed out above. Many say that Chapter 2 is a “recap� of what happened in the “six days�, but there is no reason to assume this without a conclusion of the seventh day. In the supposed “recap� it says nothing about the water, the land, the sea creatures, the firmament, or anything. AND it supposedly “recaps� out of context saying he created the beasts of the field, AFTER forming the man.

This may or may not be a “recap� of events. So consider the following.
IF there’s a conclusion of the seventh day then it would be this statement.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Another thing to point out is…the numbers of each verse and each chapter where NOT part of the original manuscripts. These numbers were given for “modern� study reference. So try to look past them.

Here, is a statement that could be the conclusion of the seventh day, and making reference to the fact that the FIRST VERSE assumption is correct. If it is correct, and throughout some time, there would have been underwater vegetation. Or vegetation that was frozen in an Ice age that then wasn’t.

Again, it does not “recap� anything else between the third day, and the sixth day, and goes straight in to this…

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

This is widely debated that the Hebrew word translated for “man� can in fact be also be translated “a man� or “the man�. But lets let it stand as it is written. This would be the time in which Adam was created, for the sole purpose in which the bloodline of Christ was to follow. All other men and women were also there. (I’m still getting to that) And to say he formed him out of the dust of the ground doesn’t override the theory of evolution, because “everything� living would have ultimately come from there. “The children of Star Dust�.

Anyway, I’m going to stop going verse by verse here, cause I can’t go through the entire Genesis in a forum, but…

Notice: There were already lands, which had names when describing the location of the Garden.
Now, let me break this down.
You have Adam…you have Eve…they have fun and end up with Cain and Able…TWINS (notice she did not “conceive� twice, but “bare� twice.)
Cain kills Able…and Cain goes to the land of Nod (a place already named) and takes…a WIFE!?
This is clearly biblical evidence that Adam and Eve were NOT the only people on the planet.
And believe me there is much, much , more.

I’m going to have to stop there, but let me try to answer some of your question directly.

(9) God told Adam and Eve that they cannot eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If Adam and Eve did not possess the knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit, how could they know that God was good, and the serpent was evil, which undoubtedly would have been necessary to fully understand why obeying God's order above the serpent's suggestion was the right decision?

The “Tree� was the “Serpent�. Often a body can be referred to as the “trunk� and the arms and legs as “limbs�. The Tree of Life was also in the Garden. Which was Christ-God-Holy Spirit…The Trinity.

The “fruit� was the “Fruit of Knowledge� which is like the modern metaphor “to consume knowledge�…NOT a literal piece of fruit.

They didn’t “know�. They had the understanding of a child. Which is why they didn’t obey.

(9a) Also, why would an omni-benevolent god want mankind not to know the difference between right and wrong?

He would want you to “know� the difference.
Let me paste the follow that I wrote elsewhere…

Consider a child.
God creates a being with absolutely no knowledge.
He gives him true free will, and teaches him what is good in Gods eyes.
He teaches him also evil (he allowed the serpent to be there) so that he will know what it is, so he can avoid it, lest he chose evil unknowingly.
And so he can be thankful for that which God gave him.
(Such a thing is like telling a child what pain is who has never felt it.)
(Oh, yeah, I’ve heard about pain. Never felt it before. But I know what it is.)
But with the free will of a child, he disobeys the father.
(Don’t touch that thorn bush son it will hurt you.)
(The child says ok, and with free will goes to touch it anyway.)
(If you have kids, you’ll know what I’m talking about)
And does evil in the sight of God, and his evil brings upon him his own pain.
And the child then truly knows pain, and he will not touch it again.

So why did God let him touch it? He could have stopped him, and saved him from his suffering.

If you give a homeless man a fish to eat. He will eat for a day. (the spoiled child)
If you teach him how to fish, he will eat everyday of his life. (the self preserved child)

For us to know suffering is the only way we will know it.
(Think of this example also in term of the entire human race, from beginning to end)

(10) Genesis 3:1 has the serpent (or snake) talking to Eve about the Tree of Knowledge. Since snakes do not have vocal cords and are thus incapable of speaking, how would this be scientifically possible?

Again, the serpent and the tree are the same thing. The serpent is not literally a snake, but a metaphor that he is devious and deceitful.

(11) Genesis 3:7 says that once Adam and Eve ate from the fruit, they realized that they were naked, and hid from God because they felt "shame". If it was inherently wrong for human beings to walk around naked, then why did God create them that way in the first place? Why would He want them to do something that He considered to be wrong?

Not that it was wrong. They were taught was shame is. It is to be ashamed of themselves that is the evil.

(12) Genesis 3:8 says that God was "walking" in the Garden, "in the cool of the day". Is the word "walking" used metaphorically or literally?

It is a metaphor that coincides with the Tree of Life. Christ-God-Holy Spirit IS the Tree of Life. The metaphor is in the relationship that his voice was “walking�.

(12a) If it is used metaphorically, isn't it possible that other parts of Genesis are meant to be metaphorical as well? In fact, isn't it possible that the entire account in Genesis is metaphorical?

Yes.

(13) Genesis 3:9-13 has God asking questions like "Where are you?", "Is this true?" and "Who told you that you were naked?" Why would an omniscient being need to ask such questions? Wouldn't God already know the answer?

Yes. He did know. However, Adam and Eve do not know when or what God knows. If he didn’t ask, and give them the opportunity to confess truth, that would be like just walking in on your kid after finding out they did something bad, and spanking their butt for no apparent reason. He didn’t make Adam and Eve All-knowing even though they were figuring out what evil was.

(14) If God were all-powerful and all-knowing, and didn't want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, why wouldn't He simply prevent them from doing so?

He knew they would do it. Reference the answer to your question (9a) in a broader scope.

Have you ever seen a child standing near something, the parent says don’t touch that, and the kid gets this feeling like he just “has to� now that you said not to. If he prevented them from it that would not be free will (or free choice as some prefer) and they wouldn't ever learn anything.
It’s like “having to let go� of your kids at some point for them to learn. Yeah, you could stop them, but it is what is best for them in the end.
I can only image the grieve and sadness in the heart of an “omni-benevolent� being to let go and do what is best for his children.
(omni-benevolent term is never used in the bible by the way.)

(14a) If your answer is that God doesn't want to violate our freewill, why in Genesis 3:22-24 did He see to it that Adam and Eve couldn't have access to the other forbidden tree in the Garden, the Tree of Life?

I think free will is your freedom to make judgment or choose. But it never claims anywhere in the bible where he promises you to do whatever you want on an indefinite basis.

Another thing I would like to point out here is this verse…

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

As I implied, the Tree of Life is Christ, which is one with God. And further shows that Adam was the blood line for the sole purpose of Christ to come through. It says, in the above verse, that the Guardian angels were placed at the EAST of the Garden. To keep “the way� of the Tree of Life. It is Cain, the seed of evil, who left the Garden to the East. To keep the blood line (the way) he prevented them from traveling out of the Garden into that land where the blood would be mingled.

(15) In Genesis 3:22, God says, "The man has now become like one of us". Who is the "us" to which God is referring? (Note that the words "one of us" is used in virtually every translation of Genesis, ranging from the NIV to the KJV to the ASV, so the use of a plural is apparently not in question among Biblical scholars.)

He is talking to the angels in heaven. To know Good and Evil and Live Forever, is to be like them. That is not to suggest power or capability.

(16) Adam and Eve had two children, Cain and Abel, one of whom was killed. Genesis 4:17 says that Cain "lay with his wife". Who was Cain's wife and where did she come from?

I think I answered that one as best I could already. Right before I started addressing you questions directly.

(17) Genesis 5 is devoted entirely to the genealogies of Adam. Everyone mentioned in this chapter lives to be at least 700 years old. How can you scientifically justify this?

First, you would have to ask what calendar they are going by. Do you really think it is the same as today’s calendar? On top of that, there was no pollution of any kind. And on top of that, I have heard of a Chinese man, just not too long ago, who lived to be over 150 years old. It was found that his entire diet consisted or rice and vegetation. Whole foods, no meat, and none of that crap packaged in supermarkets.

With all that considered. I think it’s possible.

(18) Genesis 6:6 says that God saw the wickedness of mankind and "regretted" creating them. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why would he create something that he knew he'd regret later?

NO. Its reads…

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Do you know what the sons of God are? They are the angels. Angels who are said to be the third of the stars that will fall with Satan. Hence, “mighty men which were of old, men of renown.�

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

This is like the answer to your question (14). He knew it. But with his incredible love, made him sad and grieved when it came to pass.
The flood of Noah was not to wipe out every man on the face of the earth. It was to destroy the children of the Sons of God…the wicked angels.

I am going to have to go, so I’ll have to stop here. I will try to post again on the remainder of your questions. But I can't necessarily teach a bible study on a forum. hehe

There is a whole bible full of stuff...much of it in later books of the bible refer back to things in earlier books of the bible. There is much, much more.

Try reading the bible from cover to cover, then do it again, and again, and again, and again.
You'll start to get a much broader idea of whats actually going on.

rlogan

Moses led a million people on a 40-year camping trip without leaving so much as a candy wrapper as evidence.

This is known as the "great vacuo", which is explained in a lost chapter of Exodus. God creates a particle magnet that sucks all the evidence into outer space, including any heiroglyphs in Egypt and the tomb of Moses himself.

The only thing that remained was the pentateuch.

Jayhawker Soule

Specifically, according to whom? Specifically, verified how?

Specifically, said by whom? Specifically, verified how?

Roland

I'm currently reading some of the works of Joseph Campbell and it amazes me that there are people who STILL insist on reading these myths literally. I sometimes don't know whether to laugh or cry.