Arrowman

I think you'll find that atheists and agnostics are in the great majority here. But that is not the [main] point.

Why do I think it is important to establish that the Bible says things like "the earth is young" or "the earth is flat"? Not to "show the Bible false" as such; but as part of the debate over whether creationism (and young earth creationism in particular) has any rational, scientific basis (and therefore should be taught in schools as such).

Now, YECs like Ken Ham make the claim that the Bible says the earth is young - I don't need to make that claim. They also claim that the Bible, literally read, includes an accurate account of the creation of the universe and life, and that there is scientific evidence to support this.

Therefore, if I can show that (for example) the same Bible also claims the earth is flat, I force my opponent into one of two positions - either (a) yes, the earth is flat or (b) the Bible cannot be literally interpreted because at least one part of it, when literally interpreted, is demonstrably false.

The point of this exercise is not to "prove the Bible false" - just to show that it ain't a science text, and that where it conflicts with demonstrable reality, it might be a good idea to stick with reality.

excreationist

I think that if the Bible appears gravely misguided to unbiassed laypeople (not highly-trained apologists) then this suggests that it isn't the work of an all-powerful, all-knowing god. I'm not starting with that conclusion, but if things continue the way they are, that is the conclusion that I will make.

Kosh

Hmm. Secular Web. Internet Infidels. What
was your first clue?

You seem to be trying really hard to stretch
what the bible "means" so that it won't conflict
with reality and you can keep believing in God.

Interesting approach for someone who uses "Linux"
in his login. Linux people are usually very
independent types and original thinkers.

Think for yourself and stand tall man, you're a
Linux dude!

Asha'man

Ahh, tested! What a novel approach. Almost scientific.....

The whole problem with that idea is that the bible fails the test, miserably. If you want to keep your faith in the bible, don't ever test the bible. And if you do test it (by accident, perhaps), make sure you ignore the results. The last thing you should ever do is keep an open mind about the evidence.

Ok, you have a valid point here. However, I have a question for you: If the bible was written by God, and the intended audience was (at least initially) simple nomadic herdsman, why is it so hard to understand? Why are there apparent contradictions everywhere? Why can't the best religious scholars of today figure out exactly what was intended? Did God not want anyone to understand? Is he really trying to create confusion?

I could write clearer explanations when I was in the 2nd grade, and even keep my story straight! If I wanted to explain a very long time to a desert nomad, I would say something like "more days than there are grains of sand." If I wanted to explain exactly one day, I could say something like "evening and morning." Or is that too difficult for god to figure out?

LinuxPup

excreationist: Daniel 8:26, not 8:14... this is at the end of the vision. As far as it being "very good", yes it was very good... we often think of death as an evil thing, but it of course is necessary and has many advantages. God has forknowledge of man's actions, and knowing the sin that man would choose, He seemed to set the physics to decay everything over time... allowing a corrupt race of man to live forever would be awful. I believe the garden was as perfect as it gets in this universe. That's just my two cents...
Kosh: As far "thinking for myself", well I try to do that as much as possible. But don't think because I'm a Christian, that I'm unreasonable or something... I have thought this through a LOT... why? Because believing in something "just because", to me, is stupid. I'd like to make the point that atheists/agnostics, from my experience on this website and in life in general, are no better than your average Christian. I've found that they often don't know what they believe, and why they believe it. Atheists are no more "free thinking" than most Christians... it is popular to be in the atheist standpoint, and would explain all the bumperstickers and bragging that I see. Faith is not believing in something because your parents are Christians or because you have this "feeling"... it's trusting in something you have *reason* to believe is true...And the Bible has shown itself to be inspired my God through it's creation account, prophetical fullfillment, etc. I have often brought up tough questions to Christians in order to find the truth... "You believe Jesus is God? Why?"... "How do you know he rose from the dead?"..."How do you know the Bible hasn't been altered a lot in it's thousands of years of existance?" And many Christians disappointed me, however the few that really dug into the Bible, science, archeology, etc. have shown me that the Bible is too good to be by man. Believe it or not, like it or not, many Christians became Christians *because* of the evidence, not *despite* the evidence... An example is Dr. David Rogstad... he's a Christian I met, and retired from the Caltech JPL... a very smart man.
Asha'man: That's right, I said "tested"... and this is important. Which is why I applaud efforts such as Reasons to Believe's falsifiable, testable, creation model. This organization run by scientists believes strongly in applying the scientific method to their creation model. If you think is ridiculous, you should at least take a look at it first. And as far as the Bible being difficult to understand... the plain things are the main things and the main things are the plain things. The Bible offers scripture that ranges from the simple John 3:16 to more intricate passages like that of Revelation. One can read a book of the Bible and get a good understanding, and then get more in depth if they want, and find an even deeper meaning behind it.

excreationist

This says that the evenings and the days concern the distant future. Perhaps to those people, 3 years was the "distant future". The NIV at least talks about the 2300 evenings and mornings lasting for a single day. Perhaps it was a thousand times longer then - so each evening and morning (together) would take about 1000 days. Then 2300 evenings and mornings would take about 3000 years.
Then the 6 days of genesis would take about 18 years.
Or if you're saying that each day of Genesis could have been as long as a billion years or more, then the prophecy in Daniel involves a time scale of trillions of years.

Peaceful death isn't all that happened before Adam sinned - there would have also been large animals being mauled and eaten alive by wolves, and animals starving to death, and getting shocking diseases, pigs eating their young, animals and apemen getting agonizing infections that maggots started to live in, unconscious animals choking in their own vomit, baby animals that are screaming for help after they became lost and the wolves are howling, etc.
So what does "very good" mean anyway? Those things don't sound nice... maybe they're just "very good" for God's great plan to sort out the worshipping sheep from the selfish wolves.

LinuxPup

excreationist:
I should clarify that Daniel 8:26's "evenings and mornings" is not in the plural, but singular. If you check it out in the Hebrew, it's actually "evening and morning"... the KJV has it right in this respect. This is why I find it interesting that the singular phrase "evening and morning" can note more than a 24 hour period.
no, no.. not at all.. the two books are speaking of two things... you cannot divorce a verse from it's context. My point is merely that "evening and morning" does not need to refer to a 24 hour day. Basically, the topic of this thread is false.

Before referring to emotional, subjective arguments, it is important to note that it is necessary for death to exist. Imagine a world where these same "pig" and "baby animals" felt the same suffering but couldn't die. God created life, and has every right to take it.

Kosh

Unless your name is "Mathew" and you're grasping
at straws to claim that Isaiah foretold of the
virgin birth myths which you're incorporating...

Christians don't seem to have a problem taking
OT verses out of context to serve their purpose...

excreationist

So the KJV, KJ21, YLT, Darby and TEV/GNB have it as a singular. NIV, NASB, NLT ("twenty-three hundred evenings and mornings"), NKJV and RSV have plurals.
Anyway, Daniel 8:26 KJV says "And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told...for it shall be for many days". Which vision are they referring to? The one that lasted for 2300 evenings and mornings? Or another one?

Well in Daniel 8:26 it seems to refer to the vision involving 2300 evenings and mornings. I don't know of any verse in the Bible that says that the singular evening and mornings in Genesis refer to longer periods of time. Also, they say "that was the first day", "that was the second day", etc, reinforcing the idea that only one literal day had passed.

But the instincts that lead to their suffering are unnecessary... animals could have been plant eaters... and God could have made sure that there were no droughts or starvation in the world, and not created diseases, etc. Determining whether something is "very good" or not is basically an emotional decision anyway. You don't seem to respond to more rational arguments like there being starvation and disease in general, so I tried to explain it a bit more explicitly.

Dr Rick

uuuhh...are you aware of where you are right now?