Freethought & Rationalism Archive

AtheistGamer · 05-19-2009, 11:09 PM

Forgive me. I didn't know where to put this because it deals with both biblical criticism and creationism/evolution. I chose the biblical criticism section since I plan on using the following bible verses to prove that Yahweh doesn't exist.

Anyway...

Genesis 1:11 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.

Genesis 1:20 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.

Seems to me that the bible is saying that fruit trees came before fish in the sea. I've heard Christians say that Genesis' creation account is an allegory, but that only deals with Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit. For me the realization that Genesis gets the order of the appearance of plants and fish so wrong was the final nail in the coffin for Christianity and all Abrahamic religions.

I plan on making a youtube video that highlights this problem in Genesis. Mostly because I've never seen an apologist tackle it. But also because it seems like an airtight case against Christianity that doesn't require any massive philosophical or historical expertise in order to comprehend. So even the most moronic of people can understand it.

The ironic thing is that I had a creationist point these verses out to me years ago in an attempt to get me to reject evolution by way of appealing to the bible's authority. It had the opposite effect and made me reject Abrahamic religions entirely.

But what I wanted to know was... Are there any evolution accepting apologists out there that attempt to deal with this error in Genesis' creation account?

Huon · 05-20-2009, 12:55 AM

Quote:

So even the most moronic of people can understand it.

Optimist !

Toto · 05-20-2009, 01:10 AM

Christians who accept evolution generally do not take the Bible as a literal depiction of events, so would not be fazed by this Bible difficulty.

Of course, once you decide that the Bible is incorrect on one point, it's hard to know where to stop.

Roger Pearse · 05-20-2009, 03:38 AM

I was reminded by this post, and its eager conclusion from some obscure point, of the words of Dean Swift.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Swift

And therefore, if, notwithstanding all I have said, it still be thought necessary to have a Bill brought in for repealing Christianity, I would humbly offer an amendment, that instead of the word Christianity may be put religion in general, which I conceive will much better answer all the good ends proposed by the projectors of it.

For as long as we leave in being a God and His Providence, with all the necessary consequences which curious and inquisitive men will be apt to draw from such promises, we do not strike at the root of the evil, though we should ever so effectually annihilate the present scheme of the Gospel; for of what use is freedom of thought if it will not produce freedom of action, which is the sole end, how remote soever in appearance, of all objections against Christianity? and therefore, the Freethinkers consider it as a sort of edifice, wherein all the parts have such a mutual dependence on each other, that if you happen to pull out one single nail, the whole fabric must fall to the ground.

This was happily expressed by him who had heard of a text brought for proof of the Trinity, which in an ancient manuscript was differently read; he thereupon immediately took the hint, and by a sudden deduction of a long Sorites, most logically concluded: why, if it be as you say, I may safely drink on, and defy the parson.

From which, and many the like instances easy to be produced, I think nothing can be more manifest than that the quarrel is not against any particular points of hard digestion in the Christian system, but against religion in general, which, by laying restraints on human nature, is supposed the great enemy to the freedom of thought and action. -- Jonathan Swift, An Argument against Abolishing Christianity: An argument to prove that the abolishing of Christianity in England may, as things now stand, be attended with some inconveniences, and perhaps not produce those many good effects proposed thereby.Written in the year 1708.

AtheistGamer · 05-20-2009, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Christians who accept evolution generally do not take the Bible as a literal depiction of events, so would not be phased by this Bible difficulty.

Of course, once you decide that the Bible is incorrect on one point, it's hard to know where to stop.

So that's it huh? No mind games in order to make it fit with evolution? They just decanonize within their own minds so they can keep on believing?

Toto · 05-20-2009, 11:10 AM

There are a few inerrantists who insist on fitting a simple-minded literal interpretation of the Bible into a (sort of) scientific framework. Answers In Genesis might be the only place to answer this question.

Most Christians think of the Bible as "true" or "inspired" in some sort of higher, spiritual sense.

Toto · 05-20-2009, 12:55 PM

AIG on the order of creation

Quote:

Christians have compromised with so-called “science” and tried to add millions of years to the Bible. As a result, we have the gap theory, the day-age view, theistic evolution, and the framework hypothesis. While these views differ in significant areas, one thing they all have in common is adoption of an evolutionary timescale. Perhaps the most significant movement of late is the view called progressive creationism, championed by Dr. Hugh Ross. This chapter will compare Dr. Ross’s teachings with the Bible and science and show us the dangers of trying to fit the Bible into modern-day scientific theories.

Besides the textual problems, progressive creationists have scientific dilemmas as well. They accept modern scientific measurements for the age of the earth, even though these measurements are based on evolutionary, atheistic assumptions. Dr. Ross often speaks of the “facts of nature” and the “facts of science” when referring to the big bang and billions of years. This demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding of evidence. The scientific “facts” that evolutionists claim as proof of millions of years are really interpretations of selected observations that have been made with antibiblical, philosophical assumptions.

...

Dr. Davis Young, former geology professor at Calvin College, recognized this dilemma and abandoned the “day-age” theory. Here is part of his explanation as to why he discarded it:

The biblical text, for example, has vegetation appearing on the third day and animals on the fifth day. Geology, however, had long realized that invertebrate animals were swarming in the seas long before vegetation gained a foothold on the land ... . Worse yet, the text states that on the fourth day God made the heavenly bodies after the earth was already in existence. Here is a blatant confrontation with science. Astronomy insists that the sun is older than the earth.

So, when the Bible is inconsistent with science, inerrantist Christians reject the evidence of their lying eyes and rely on the Bible, or their simplistic reading of it.

As you can see, this puts them at odds with many, if not most, other Christians.

lpetrich · 05-20-2009, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So, when the Bible is inconsistent with science, inerrantist Christians reject the evidence of their lying eyes and rely on the Bible, or their simplistic reading of it.

As you can see, this puts them at odds with many, if not most, other Christians.

However, this alleged silent majority has continued to stay suspiciously silent, and I don't enjoy carrying their water while bending over backward to avoid seeming offensive to them.

AtheistGamer · 05-20-2009, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Most Christians think of the Bible as "true" or "inspired" in some sort of higher, spiritual sense.

What I don't get is this... What do Christian's mean that the bible is inspired by God? Do they mean that some dude liked the idea of God, and decided to make up a book about him and how he made the universe, even though they had no knowlege of the event in question?

How the fuck is that any different from what us Atheists are saying?

What do they mean true in a spiritual sense?

Until they bother to define what the hell it is they are talking about I'm not buying this "Inspired by God", or "Spiritually True" nonsense.

Toto · 05-21-2009, 12:39 AM

The only thing you need to know is that pointing out contradictions in the Biblical text will not automatically deconvert most Christians.

05-19-2009, 11:09 PM	#1
AtheistGamer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Central Iowa Posts: 128	Land plants before fish? What do apologists have to say? Forgive me. I didn't know where to put this because it deals with both biblical criticism and creationism/evolution. I chose the biblical criticism section since I plan on using the following bible verses to prove that Yahweh doesn't exist. Anyway... Genesis 1:11 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. Genesis 1:20 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. Seems to me that the bible is saying that fruit trees came before fish in the sea. I've heard Christians say that Genesis' creation account is an allegory, but that only deals with Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit. For me the realization that Genesis gets the order of the appearance of plants and fish so wrong was the final nail in the coffin for Christianity and all Abrahamic religions. I plan on making a youtube video that highlights this problem in Genesis. Mostly because I've never seen an apologist tackle it. But also because it seems like an airtight case against Christianity that doesn't require any massive philosophical or historical expertise in order to comprehend. So even the most moronic of people can understand it. The ironic thing is that I had a creationist point these verses out to me years ago in an attempt to get me to reject evolution by way of appealing to the bible's authority. It had the opposite effect and made me reject Abrahamic religions entirely. But what I wanted to know was... Are there any evolution accepting apologists out there that attempt to deal with this error in Genesis' creation account?

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

05-20-2009, 01:10 AM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Christians who accept evolution generally do not take the Bible as a literal depiction of events, so would not be fazed by this Bible difficulty. Of course, once you decide that the Bible is incorrect on one point, it's hard to know where to stop.

05-20-2009, 11:10 AM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	There are a few inerrantists who insist on fitting a simple-minded literal interpretation of the Bible into a (sort of) scientific framework. Answers In Genesis might be the only place to answer this question. Most Christians think of the Bible as "true" or "inspired" in some sort of higher, spiritual sense.

05-21-2009, 12:39 AM	#10
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The only thing you need to know is that pointing out contradictions in the Biblical text will not automatically deconvert most Christians.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.