hezekiah jones

Then why can't you reconcile any more of the Bible than simply those verses? Why stop there? Because you know the earth isn't flat, nor is it supported by pillars, nor is it the center of the "firmament," right?

Well, we know the universe is a heck of a lot older than 10,000 years. So we have to reconcile those verses too. Piece of cake.

Mageth

Secondly, science has been wrong before. I just think we haven;t got the oprigins figured out yet. I'm sure you agree with me on that.

Science has been wrong, but when the evidence indicates such, science corrects its mistakes. Unlike creationism.

And you're right, we haven't "figured out" origins. But we have figured out that young earth, seven-day creation, and Noah's flood are myths.

RufusAtticus

Did Josephus know Moses personally? I don't see how he had anymore knowledge about Moses than we do.

Yes. Science used to be wrong about creation. Modern techniques and evidence have unquestionably proved both evolution and an old earth. Although current thoughts will probably need revision, young earth creation is extremely dead as a scientific explaination.

But you can't (or won't) reconcile evolution or an old earth? Why not?

~~RvFvS~~

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Mageth

Moses had a close relationship with God. If anyone knew what God meant, it was Moses. Thats all.

If young earth is a myth (as the evidence irrefutably indicates that it is), then Moses' "relationship" with god may also be mythical, no?

hezekiah jones

Moses would have had a much closer relationship with God if he'd had a telescope.

Douglas J. Bender

lpetrich,

No. But there are parts of the Bible which are obviously NOT "metaphorical", such as Lot's wife turning into a "pillar of salt". Ever heard of some of the results of the explosion of a nuclear bomb?

Satan is a spiritual creature, not "bound" by our typical physical universe and "laws". Where in the Bible does it say that it was BECAUSE the mountain was so high that Jesus could see "all the kingdoms of the world"? Joshua telling the Sun to stop moving was like we might describe the Sun, if the Earth stopped orbiting the Sun for a time, as having "stopped" moving across the sky. The Bible was not "defining" the "bird kind" in Leviticus, but was describing "things that fly" (and are not insects), by using the term we translate as "birds". Thus, since bats fly, they qualify under that category.

Actually, the King James Version does not describe bats as "birds". So....


In Christ,

Douglas

hezekiah jones

But there are parts of the Bible which are obviously NOT "metaphorical", such as Lot's wife turning into a "pillar of salt". Ever heard of some of the results of the explosion of a nuclear bomb?

I should like to nominate the above non sequitur of the month.

RufusAtticus

I get it now. God is a middle-eastern terrorist who stole a nuclear bomb, then transported it back in time to turn a nosey tart into a pillar of salt.

~~RvFvS~~

Mageth

I'll second the nomination.

I've heard of the results of nuclear explosions, but I've never heard of it (selectively) turning someone in a group of people to a pillar of salt when they looked at it.

RufusAtticus

Such an obvious error in terminology is not a good indicator that the Bible is a reliable science text.

~~RvFvS~~