The New Testament and Genesis 1-11

Amen!

 

the Bible does explain scientific truth. but the bible is not a science textbook. the bible accuratly describes many scientific facts, years before the "scientific" community reconized them. take for instance....the roundness of the earth (Is40:22), or life being in the blood, or diseases speard thru contact (pagens were still kissing diseased loved ones on thier death bed, but God had the Jews quarrentine them) which is the basis for monern quarentine proceedures. the entire hydrological cycle is in Job. There is far more proof for a young earth than for an old one. The earths magnetic field is shrinking (i have read the refutes of this argument but they don not addres the issue). Ooparts (out of place artifacts) and ancient evidence of high technology (4000 year old model plane found in Giza, Egypt) all support biblical chronology. as for the vasts distances in outer space....just read Sandia National Labratories scientist Rustle Humphries Starlight and Time. The Problem with evolution is it is just a regurgitation of the Babylonian Creation Myth (not to be confused with the Genesis Fact). another interesting thing is every culture has a begining of time and most have flood ledgends (many flood ledgends retain the name Noah or a form of it at least a dozen by my count). a young earth is the only biblical view. and yes the geneology is complete. but you don't go to hell for believeing in evolution, you got to hell for sinning.
thankyou and God Bless

 

also Jesus said he created them male and female from the beginning, if they weren't literal days Jesus would have been lying. 5 days from the first day of creation is from the begining but if they weren't then adam and eve would have been made in the middle
thanks again

 

"the Bible does explain scientific truth. but the bible is not a science textbook. the bible accuratly describes many scientific facts, years before the "scientific" community reconized them. take for instance....the roundness of the earth (Is40:22)"

Huh. Then why did the author use the term for a flat disk and not use the word for a ball as he did in Is 22:18?

"The earths magnetic field is shrinking (i have read the refutes of this argument but they don not addres the issue)"

The magnetic field is produced by a dynamo in the earth's interior. It periodically reverses. We have records of hundreds of such reversals recorded in the rocks. We even observed the sun's magnetic field reverse recently. And you are confusing the measurement of the dipole moment of the earth's magnetic field with the strength of the entire field.

"Ooparts (out of place artifacts) and ancient evidence of high technology (4000 year old model plane found in Giza, Egypt) all support biblical chronology."

A 5 inch long "model plane" supports your chronology just how? Besides, I hope your other OOP artifacts are better than this one and are relevant.

http://www.catchpenny.org/model.html

"as for the vasts distances in outer space....just read Sandia National Labratories scientist Rustle Humphries Starlight and Time."

You do realize, of course, that he would not have made the hypothesis if he did not accept that when we look into space that the universe gives pretty convincing evidence that it is billions of years old. He is trying to have his cake and eat it too. In this case he is willing to accept billions of years for the universe but not for the earth. Unfortunately, his ideas do not jibe with relativity.

"The Problem with evolution is it is just a regurgitation of the Babylonian Creation Myth"

The Babylonians had a theory where mutation and selective pressure conspired to produce new species with time? You'll have to give me more information on that one! I thought their creation myth had man being formed from clay and the blood of a slain god.

 

No where does the Bible claim that the earth is flat. The Hebrew word "duwr" means "ball" not "disk."

 

Correct. Then why was that word not used in Is 40:22? The answer is that it was not meant to be a scientific statement about the shape of the earth.

 

Just where did I say anything about it being written to deceive man? I am not the one trying to read in additional meaning other than the clear intent.

 

You gotta laugh!

 

Circle (chuwg) in Hebrew also can be translated circuit.

Perhaps Isaiah 40:22 isn't describing the shape of the earth but rather its circuit.

"He sits enthroned above the circuit of the earth (earth's orbit), and its people are like grasshoppers."

 

I would assert that the most parsimonious interpretation of the word would be that is is used to describe the vault of the sky. See definition 2.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=02329&version=kjv

This would be in agrement with the description of the firmament as used elsewhere in the OT, for example in the creation account. Since we know that there is not a fixed dome over the earth that the description is something other than a literal description of how things are. As I said in my last post, to assert that it is making a scientific statement is to ignore the clear intent of the verse and to use a stressed interpretation that a reader from the time of writing would not have used.

 

OldReg, you have quoted various evolutionists before (and now again in the above post) in an attempt to bolster your young-earth creationism.
It's so wrong...

Do you fail to understand that the evolutionists are attempting to create a false dilemma.

They are attempting fool people into believing that the choose is between either atheistic evolutionism OR young-earth creationism.
You have united yourself with them in the belief that anything else would be unacceptable.

Why would they do this? They know that many people would find the young-earth creationist position unreasonable and therefore make people dismiss Christianity offhand as an unreasonable belief. They say, "Believe in materialistic evolutionism or believe in Christianity which defies reason and understanding".

If presented with this dilemma prior to conversion or as a young Christian I'd hate to guess the decision I may have made.

The current goal of Scientific Creationist's is to bring REASON to their YEC belief. It's an uphill battle for them that personally I don't believe they can successfully climb.

Many other Christians believe there are a variety of different reasonable solutions to the questions posed by the passages in Genesis and elsewhere in the Scriptures.

This has been a question that has been pondered for countless centuries.
If indeed you think that you have found an easy solution to the dificulties posed in the text then you will have answered a problem that has perplexed countless theologians for millennia.

Rob

 

the squarra bird is just one of MANY FOUND around the world. the info you regurgitated did a nice job explaining the pagan egyptian thoughts on it, but if it was used commonly why is there only one,and why if it was a weathervain was it found in a tomb. funny though you failed to mention that an EXACT replica (with an engine added, and one without) flies prefectly, nice to know you trust egyptians over engineers.

Their study revealed that the 5.6-inch long body was aerodynamically sound. In fact, one aeronautics engineer noted a remarkable similarity between the Saqqara bird and a new, oblique-winged aircraft that NASA planned to build. And when the tiny wooden relic was subjected to the ultimate test -- a flight trial -- it soared through the air with the ease and grace of a modern-day glider.To the experts, the conclusion was inescapable: The 2,000-year-old object was a model airplane."....

More: "The model has the exact proportions of a very advanced form of "pusher-glider" that is still having "some bugs ironed out". This type of glider will stay in the air almost by itself; even a very small engine will keep it going at low speeds, as low as 45 to 65 mph., while it can carry an enormous payload. This ability is dependent on the curious shape of wings and their proportions. The tipping of wings downward, a reversedihedral wing as it is called, is the feature behind this capability. A similar type of curving wings are implemented on the Concorde airplane, giving the plane a maximum lift without detracting from its speed".

i got this from /www.s8int.com/page2.html

ancient high tech is no problem for creation(from complex to simple), it is for evolution(from simple to complex)

as for dr Russell Humphries....nice to see you dodge this one....desparage the person, not the data, and it does work with relativity, do the math yourself.

quote:
The magnetic field is produced by a dynamo in the earth's interior. It periodically reverses. We have records of hundreds of such reversals recorded in the rocks. We even observed the sun's magnetic field reverse recently. And you are confusing the measurement of the dipole moment of the earth's magnetic field with the strength of the entire field.

like i said this does not addres the issue, i am not confusing them you are. the OVERALL strength has a halflife of about 1400 yrs. the APPARENT or FELT magnetic field remains, for the most part, constant (yes it fluxuates), but the dipole magnetic field only ADD magnatism to the earth it CANNOT take away magnatism. the OVERALL field intensity would have been so strong 10000 years ago that the molecules for life could not even exist...let alone MOST other molecules.

anyway thankyou and God Bless

 

"funny though you failed to mention that an EXACT replica (with an engine added, and one without) flies prefectly, nice to know you trust egyptians over engineers.

Their study revealed that the 5.6-inch long body was aerodynamically sound. In fact, one aeronautics engineer noted a remarkable similarity between the Saqqara bird and a new, oblique-winged aircraft that NASA planned to build. "

That info is contradicted by another expert.

http://www.catchpenny.org/birdtest.html

"as for dr Russell Humphries....nice to see you dodge this one....desparage the person, not the data, and it does work with relativity, do the math yourself."

What did I say to disparage him? Nothing at all. You make a baseless charge. I said that you should recognize that he must understand that an honest review of the universe shows it to be billions of years old, else why would he try and make a hypothesis that accepts an old universe but a young earth.

Well since his theory requires the universe to be bounded then it is at odds with observations. Recent details of the anisotropy of the CMB shows that the universe is indeed unbounded.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/031001b.html

Furthermore, this whole line of reasoning is a fallacious appeal to authority. Humphreys has no formal training in relativity to be considered a useful source on such information. Furthermore, I have never heard of any scientists trained in relativity that supports his conclusions while there are many that can be found to show the mistakes. Simply the result of someone trying to do work in an area in which they are not qualified.

If he thinks that his ideas are correct, then why have they not been sent to an appropriate technical journal for reveiw and publication? If he is worried about bias, he could always choose one of the theoretical journals to see if his solution is even valid without having to wory about whether it is right or not.

Here is a good critique of Humphreys by a Christian.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main

"like i said this does not addres the issue, i am not confusing them you are. the OVERALL strength has a halflife of about 1400 yrs. the APPARENT or FELT magnetic field remains, for the most part, constant (yes it fluxuates), but the dipole magnetic field only ADD magnatism to the earth it CANNOT take away magnatism. the OVERALL field intensity would have been so strong 10000 years ago that the molecules for life could not even exist...let alone MOST other molecules."

Please demonstrate what you are saying to be true so I can know where to begin to address your claims.

 

Deacon,

I think Gorman Gray did just that - found a solution to the age old controversy.

UTE,

The Hebrew word means what it means, and the simplest understanding of the word is circle or circuit. Even "circle" could mean the earth's orbit and not the shape of the earth. However, there are verses in the Bible that describe the circular horizon of the earth.

 

What always gets me about these arguments is the fact that many young earthers insist on imputing bad faith to those who believe in an old earth or in theistic evolution.

Theistic evolution adherents are reverent of the scriptures and believe them to be authoritative - but they believe that some study is necessary to discern exactly what Genesis 1 is saying. They see themselves as approaching the scriptures with honesty and willingness to admit that their predetermined beliefs may not always be right. In general they would assert that Genesis 1-11 was not INTENDING to impart scientific facts, a conclusion that is quite reasonable in light of what we know of ANE literature.

So disagree if you wish - but please stop insinuating that those of the old earth persuasion lack faith. That is not nice and it HURTS your argument.