this post was submitted on
6 points (55% like it)
31 up votes 25 down votes
shortlink:
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...

5
6

Christians, how do you explain this? (self.Christianity)

submitted ago by ghostyhouse

I am a Christian myself, a non-denominational follower of Jesus Christ, but lately I've been seeing certain links on /r/atheism that is making me think more about my own personal knowledge of our religion.

How do we explain the earth being scientifically proven to be older than what the bible says?

What about the "people" they've found that are similar to cavemen?

Tricks of the devil?

Age of the dinosaurs?

Mutated humans at that time? Is the science that we've only developed in the past 60 years unreliable?

I'm feeling very ignorant lately and would like someone to shed some light on this for me. Thank you for reading this.

top 200 commentsshow all 233
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old

[–]almillarskovich 16 points17 points ago

I'd like to point out that these criticisms apply to fundamentalist Protestants and the very few other young earth creationists. Most modern churches, including the Catholic church, recognize the Big Bang theory and evolution as true. Their position is that these phenomena were guided by God.

It's not necessary to posit God in order for these theories to be true, but the fact of them does not rule Him out.

Quite frankly, the fundies do more to detract from Christian apologists' positions than any atheist could hope for.

[–]outsider 27 points28 points ago

How do we explain the earth being scientifically proven to be older than what the bible says?

You read the Bible without respect for history or tradition. A 6000yo Earth is largely due to Bishop Ussher in the 17th century. Prior to that plenty of prominent Christians ridiculed the notion.

[–]satissuperque 1 point2 points ago

Literalism is a post reformation thing, yes. But 6000yo Earth was not uncommon idea even before reformation. We might add that not only Christians but also non-Christians (eg Diogenes Laërtius) speculated about the age of the earth and sometimes agreed, that 6000 was just about it. There were of course others, who had other opinions.

[–]PLeb5 11 points12 points ago

i explain it by not thinking the bible literally meant that a snake tricked a lady into eating an apple six thousand years ago, and recognizing it as a fable with things to say about the nature of mankind.

[–]neotek 7 points8 points ago

Before modern physics, chemistry and biology provided a reasonable and scientific explanation for the origins of the universe and life, the vast majority of people did indeed believe in the creation myths of their respective religions, and it was heresy in many cases to consider those myths to be fables.

I guess what I'm getting at is, how do you know what parts of the Bible are allegorical? And of the parts that you believe are factual, how long will it be until scientific progress plugs another gap in our knowledge that directly contradicts something you believe, and what will you do when it does?

[–]brodyqc 13 points14 points ago

What could science theoretically prove that would cause a liberal believer (like many Redditors here) to retreat? To me, existence is what it is, and learning more about the universe and the world doesn't dim my appreciation for it or the creator.

[–]neotek 0 points1 point ago

You miss my point. PLeb5 is saying that the story of Biblical creation is an allegory, however up until recently it was considered gospel truth (if you'll pardon the pun.) Had you been born a few hundred years ago, you would have believed that Eden had been a real place and the fall of man was a literal historical event. If you had lived at the right time, science would have come to dispel that notion and provide a clear, rational explanation for the origins of the universe and for life, and you would have been faced with the choice of believing in the creation story or accepting the science.

So my question is about how you choose which parts of the Bible are allegorical and which parts aren't, and if you choose the believe something as fact and scientific progress disproves it, how will you respond to that? I don't mean something as simple as "will you change your belief", because a liberal believer probably would just change their belief - that question is more about how it will affect the nature of your belief in general. How can you have faith that what you believe is right, especially without evidence?

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points ago

This claim is thrown around a lot, but it's completely false. St. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) denounced a literal interpretation of the bible and encouraged Christians to be versed in natural philosophy. Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1225-1274) lived right between two inquisitions, and in his works he dismissed the Bible as a source of historical fact and explored the nature of God from an empirical, logical perspective. These men were canonized, openly declared the holiest of the holy by the church leadership, and their writings now form the basis of Catholic theology.

Fundamentalists are and always have been the fringe minority of Christianity, and most other mainstream religions. Hell, the word "fundamentalist" originated in the late 1800's when the movement was started in reaction to mainstream Christianity being strongly modernist.

[–]datTrooper 3 points4 points ago

Thanks to show up Augustine here! Upvotes to you!

[–]jij 2 points3 points ago

You're quoting a few very well educated individuals. Most people at the time were peasants and slaves, so it's a false representation. That said, I agree that official doctrine didn't really go into the topic much until later, almost in response to scientific advancement at the time.

[–]brodyqc 0 points1 point ago

I think we could safely say that both a fundamental and an allegorical view have been around a long enough time for us to assume that being a Christian doesn't paint us as one or the other automatically.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago*

On Christian Doctrine, y'all. The bishop from North Africa needs more love and less hate.

The term fundamentalism originates in the early 1900s. Curtis Lee Law first coined the term in 1920, on the eve of the Scopes Trial. But that is just the coining of the term. You are certainly correct to trace the fundamentalist roots back to before that date.

[–]neotek 0 points1 point ago

Okay, so let's pretend I grant you that premise (and I don't) - just replace that example with any of the other hundred things in the Bible that used to be considered fact but today are consider allegorical. It doesn't change the point I'm making at all.

Once again: how you choose which parts of the Bible are allegorical and which parts aren't?

[–]eatingsometoast 0 points1 point ago*

I can't tell if you are truly asking this or just being argumentative. In case you are being earnest, here is the answer. Christians first turn to Christ and the new testament for truth. His teachings are pretty clear and among them He re-states the major rules of the old testament that we should follow (a subset of the 10 commandments). The apostles go on to add a few more rules, but they are put in place simply for appearance sake so that the Christians would not look completely "unclean" to the Jews. These included not eating meat sacrificed to idols, tasting blood, or sexual immoral acts. The rest of the Bible (old testament) has some great pearls of wisdom but I haven't seen any definitive instructions for how it should be applied.

[–]neotek 0 points1 point ago

If there aren't any definitive instructions (which itself is strange if the Bible is meant to be the word of God), then how can you determine, as an individual Christian, that what you believe is correct? What process do you follow to determine what parts of the Bible are allegorical and what parts aren't?

It seems to me (and was the case for me when I was a Christian) that Christianity and other religions are entirely what you make of them, insofar as you can pick and choose for yourself which parts you'll believe in and which parts you won't. I don't understand how anyone can claim to have knowledge of the truth and what God wants when such a large part of it is about personal opinion.

[–]eatingsometoast 0 points1 point ago

Please re-read what I wrote. It doesn't seem like you understood what I said.

[–]neotek 0 points1 point ago

I think I did, but you're welcome to point out where I've misinterpreted you.

[–]dorky2 4 points5 points ago

The important things that I believe which define me as a Christian are that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, is the son of God, and was crucified and rose from the dead on the third day. Science has already proven how the processes of conception and death work, and yet I believe. Science isn't a threat to my faith because I embrace the mystical and believe in miracles.

[–]brodyqc 0 points1 point ago

Just a quibble: I'd say that God's actions aren't necessarily anti-scientific.

Say I walked into a room, picked up a fork on the floor and put it on the counter, then left the room. That's not a magical reversal of entropy, that's just me performing an action whose end results are impossible within a certain framework. I feel it is the same with God's actions in the Bible. Just because dead people aren't supposed to naturally come back to life doesn't mean that God, who resurrects people, can't just walk in the room, do it, and leave the room.

[–]dorky2 1 point2 points ago

I wouldn't say God's actions are anti-scientific, I would say they're extra-scientific. Outside of science.

[–]ahora 4 points5 points ago

Well, medieval theogicians questioned if Genesis is literal or not... Before any evolutive theory.

[–]neotek 0 points1 point ago

Great, but that doesn't change my question one bit.

[–]aflamp 0 points1 point ago

Well lets take a look at a fairly central Christian issue, the death and resurrection of Jesus. I believe that occurred through an interference by God in the natural laws of the universe. I don't think coming back from the dead is something that happens normally. It takes a direct intervention from an all-powerful God. It seems like that would be impossible to prove one way or another. That isn't a gap science can really plug.

The crux of your question is part of the God of the Gaps theory, one that few serious theologians take seriously. The two people I would consider as the MOST influential Christian theologians, St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas both said that the Bible was not meant to be a science book.

God of the Gaps was a term invented by Christian theologians to tell people NOT to view God in that way.

Related is the inerrancy or lack thereof of Scripture.

There have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy.

Hopefully some of this helped answer your question.

[–]neotek 0 points1 point ago

I can't comment on your beliefs directly because I don't know them, but in generic terms there are plenty of things that some theists believe that contradict scientific evidence - the virgin birth, for example, the creation story, Noah's ark, and so on. There are plenty who don't believe these things, because modern scientific inquiry has disproven or at least made unnecessary those beliefs, and people have modified their religions accordingly. That's the very definition of God of the Gaps, and to dismiss that religion very often involves such rationalisation is disingenuous at best.

In any case, my question really relates to the nature of belief itself. Given that you accept scientific evidence in other areas of your life, why don't you require it in your religion? Why are you willing to suspend reality to suit your religious requirements? And most importantly of all, how do you decide which parts of the Bible are allegorical and which aren't? Do you agree that if you had been born even 200 years ago, some of the things you take as allegorical today, you may well have considered fact?

[–]aflamp 0 points1 point ago

The creation story and the resurrection are slightly different in the way they contradict scientific evidence.

The creation story is perfectly valid if you want to believe it, but as I quoted earlier, St. Augustine explains why it isn't really a big deal if it is wrong. And I am perfectly willing to bow to scientific consensus (as well as my own studies as a Biology student) that evolution and the Big Bang is how the universe and life as we know it came into being. That is a conflict between a story the Bible tells and what science show us.

The resurrection is entirely different. The Bible makes it clear that Jesus' resurrection was an out of ordinary event. The Bible isn't presenting the resurrection as something that is happening to everyone (except for the resurrection in the end times to heaven/new earth, but that is fairly different). The resurrection story isn't saying here is how the world works, it is saying that God intervened in the world to change how it works.

As for what is allegorical, that is a debate that is going on for a long time. Think of it as a color transition from blue to purple. Some places you can point to and say that is definitely allegorical/blue and other places you point to it and say that is definitely literal/purple. As we learn more about the writing styles and culture we are able to tell more clearly when something may have been meant literally vs. allegorically.

tl;dr Figuring out allegory vs. literal is an ongoing process. It is one of the reasons fundamentalist have such a huge problem with the world is their belief that the Word (meaning the revelation of Jesus Christ) is static.

EDIT: Also, IANAT(heologian)

[–]neotek 0 points1 point ago

And how did you (not a theologian, but you, in your own faith) determine which parts of the Bible are literal, and which parts are allegorical? You say with certainty that some parts are clearly allegorical and some parts definitely literal, but there's no evidence that can be supplied to demonstrate which parts are which. Given the wild variation in beliefs between followers of even the same sect, how on earth did you determine that the parts you believe in are correct? What criteria did you use, what evidence did you call upon?

It seems to me that a theist can bend his religion to fit the facts, and if that doesn't work, the facts are ignored or bent to fit the religion. Your examples of creation and the resurrection is a case in point: we can happily disbelieve creationism because the scientific evidence weighs against it and it doesn't really matter if we do, but the resurrection (a fundamental pillar of Christianity, without which Christianity would be pointless) can't be waved away with such ease and so reality must bend to conform to the belief.

[–]aflamp 0 points1 point ago*

For me, "figuring out" the Bible is still an ongoing process. I used to be a fundamentalist in every sense of the word. I used to love Kent Hovind (although a large part of that was a Biology teacher that was a hard core creationist that did not teach us any Biology that disagreed with a literalist interpretation of Genesis).

The allegory vs. literal is something I am not to worried about. While it would be nice to know and I am scientifically curious, as Augustine points out, the purpose of the Bible is to give us spiritual truths, not physical truths (which seems to be the way we are interpreting literal).

So my reading of the Bible boils down to a few snippets where the writer or speaker present it very plainly.

One instance would be James 1:27:

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Another would be Jesus being asked what the greatest commandment was. The commandments were religion for the Jews (at least as far as I understand it; again, IANAT) and Jesus responded (paraphrase) Love God and Love your Neighbor. All else hangs on those. Matthew 22:37-40. Note that in the text it says second, but according to the Oxford Commentary both of those commandments are equal and inextricable to each other.

I Corinthians 13 is a whole chapter on the importance of Love to the Christian life.

Also 1 John 4:8

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

So for me personally, and I believe I do not stand alone in this, the essence of Christian life should be love. If I failed in everything else as a Christian, but loved my neighbor (as Christ would define neighbor, which seems to include everyone, especially those you would otherwise hate) I did okay.

All of that to say that I judge the rest of the Bible based upon that core thing, Love. All of the Bible must therefore precede from that in some way to tell the ultimate story of the Prodigal Son (us as fallen humans) reuniting with God (the Loving Father).

I'm sorry if that is an unsatisfying answer for you. While I think that literal vs. allegory is interesting, it isn't something I find very important. Some areas are very obviously allegory (blue) and others are not (red, I know I am changing up my example), and many Bible scholars are working very hard and studying very hard to figure out the purple area, and I will follow the lead of those who make the best argument for it one way or another. But what ever they decide is going to have to follow the parts I mentioned earlier.

Please note that I come very close (but not quite) to being a Universalist, which is considered a Church Heresy, so all my views might not line up with traditional church doctrine (although as you pointed out earlier, WTF is that because "traditional doctrine" is all over the place.)

tl;dr My answer may be VERY unsatisfying for you. Sorry.

[–]neotek 0 points1 point ago*

Thanks for taking the time to explain your views, I appreciate it.

I don't want to misrepresent you, but the impression I get is that you use the Bible to interpret the Bible, which seems circular. How did you arrive at the conclusion that the Bible itself is trustworthy to begin with?

edit: Or is it more that you've started with the premise that (a) God exists, (b) Jesus is the son of God, and (b) to follow Jesus is to live a loving life, and through that prism you interpret the Bible?

[–]johntheChristian 4 points5 points ago

Regarding texts, it has most to do with literary genre. The Gospels, the writings of paul etc. are sober highly literal pieces of work that are obviously intended to be taken at face value.

However, the prophets and the first chapter of genesis have a highly poetic form to them, almost songlike.

Literal vs. non literal mostly has to do with context and style of writing.

For the last part, I don't believe in god because of a lack of knowledge, I believe in God because I know God. I know this sounds ridiculous (even to me slightly) but faith is not a matter of making things up to fill the gaps, it is a personal experience that many of us simply cannot shake regardless.

[–]neotek 0 points1 point ago

So your measure of whether a particular part of the Bible is intended to be taken as allegory is personal opinion?

[–]johntheChristian 1 point2 points ago

An educated opinion yes.

Then again isn't that true of everyone regarding most topics?

[–]PLeb5 1 point2 points ago

I believe the entire thing is allegorical for one reason: because it doesn't matter if it's true or not. Even if everything the bible says is factual history, it doesn't matter, because God made history happen that way to tell us a story to tell us things about our lives. Whether allegory or history, the purpose of the bible is to teach man about himself, not the past.

[–]dracomorph 4 points5 points ago

I always liked the Catholic solution to this problem; it's elegant, covers your bases, and has the added benefit of actually being interesting theologically:

The Bible is imperfect because it was written by fallible, human people. They may have been divinely inspired, but their own personal inability to grasp or make use of the whole truth of the world impaired them from putting correct answers down.

How could an Iron Age Hebrew writer possibly understand that the earth is so old that the entire history of his tribe is as a fleck of dust in a sandstorm? That wouldn't fall within the boundaries of his experience, and he wouldn't be able to pen it, because the prerequisite knowledge just wasn't there.

And God doesn't want to put people through a forced and total change just to make a more literally accurate book.

[–]ICanLiftACarUp 1 point2 points ago

I'm pretty sure Catholics believe in absolute inerrancy.... In fact, that's a 100% surety. Its not so much that we believe there are certain parts that weren't right, but that our own perception of what the bible was trying to tell us in those parts wasn't what we thought it was. For instance, that man was made out of the clay of the earth is both scientifcally and biblically true - we are made of atoms, much of the same molecules that make up the earth around us.

[–]captainhaddock 4 points5 points ago

I'm pretty sure Catholics believe in absolute inerrancy

No, Catholic doctrine only states that the Bible contains everything necessary for salvation.

[–]ICanLiftACarUp 0 points1 point ago

Not exactly. The Catholic doctrine lies in the catechism, which in paragraphs 105-108, discusses this inerrancy. There are interpretations on what these paragraphs conclude, but it seems pretty obvious to me that they state that all that is in the Bible is inerrant and necessary for salvation, not just that the parts which may be necessary are inerrant.

[–]kierkegaarden 1 point2 points ago

Catholics are actually one of the most progressive groups on biblicism. It's mostly Protestant groups that claim inerrancy.

[–]JonoLith 10 points11 points ago

Alright mate. I was raised as a Fundamentalist, turned Atheist, and now I'm a Theist. Modern Theist. Whatever.

The Bible isn't literal. It's mainly metaphorical. It's a story telling device that contains revolutionary thought from the ancient era. It has more in common with the Occupy Wall St. Movement then it does with the Catholic Church.

Sorry. Welcome to the uncertainty club.

[–]TheWoodenMan 4 points5 points ago

I agree, It's a collection of journals, testimonies, news stories, allegories, songs, tales etc. In addition, I believe the whole of Genesis is an allegory not intended to be taken literally, it's entirely symbolic. Additionally, the bible is not specific about the age of the earth, this is a misconception of interpretation.

The atheists would save a lot of time if they actually checked that what they were "debunking" was actually in the bible in the first place! http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~bodla101/religion/ageoftheworld.html

[–]neotek 5 points6 points ago

How do you know which parts are metaphorical and which parts aren't?

[–]ahora 4 points5 points ago

It doesn't matter what parts are metaphorical or What parts are not, because Bible is not an encyclopedia, but a source of wisdom.

[–]HipNautilus 5 points6 points ago

It does matter. it makes a huge difference.

[–]ahora -1 points0 points ago

Maybe if we study the Bible, but in the practice, it's irrelevant.

[–]HipNautilus 2 points3 points ago

Studying the bible is also important.

[–]iliveonapalebluedot 2 points3 points ago

So the whole part about 'exclusively obtaining eternal salvation from hell by believing that through the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God's only son, that your sins have been forgiven' might just be a metaphor?

I don't get it.

[–]ahora -2 points-1 points ago

Well, it is literal, but the terms aren't accurate, since it is about things that we cannot see.

[–]Nyght87 0 points1 point ago

a source of wisdom.

A source of wisdom indeed

[–]JonoLith -3 points-2 points ago

Nailin it.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points ago

Why did you go to theist from atheist?

[–]JonoLith -1 points0 points ago

Because I am a creative person, and when I create I came to see that the music, or poetry, wasn't coming from within myself but from without. I was acting more as a conduit then a creator. When I began to explore this possibility my music improved and the ease at which the poetry began to come out of me increased.

Ultimately I came to see that denying the existence of an outside influence would have been the most unreasonable, irrational thing I could do.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

How do you know it comes from outside as opposed to within? Personal feelings aren't great evidence, if you care about that sort of thing. (It's cool if you don't if it makes you happy)

[–]gaspatchio -2 points-1 points ago

probably because he thought about it with reason and logic

[–]Londron 5 points6 points ago

I love how the moment a person turns atheist once when they get back they're like "ow it's all metaphorically".

I think it's great :p.

[–]JonoLith 2 points3 points ago

Yeah man. Atheism is useful for that. It keeps the magic away and allows us to focus on spirituality from a Human perspective rather then a magical one.

Just wish those atheists would stop believing in the magic too.

[–]Londron -1 points0 points ago

Yea, those silly scientist obviously don't know what they're talking about.

They're deceived by the devils and demons.

Ow and how is that computer working out for you?

[–]JonoLith 1 point2 points ago

And the misunderstanding the point award goes to...

[–]kierkegaarden -1 points0 points ago

That just not true. There are millions of Christians, like go-to-church-pray-every-day Christians, that do not believe some of the bible is historically true.

[–]Londron 2 points3 points ago

I never even said anything about those people.

I said that those that were an atheist for a while if they turn back go back with a view of "the bible isn't literal". That's it.

If you think I said anything more then that it's your problem, not mine.

[–]r3dfox8 4 points5 points ago

So from that perspective surely it's easy to say that "God" is just a metaphor? And heaven, hell etc?

[–]ahora 3 points4 points ago

Well, how do we imagine the heavens and hell, yes, they are metaphorical... But I think they are as real as us in spiritual terms.

[–]satissuperque 1 point2 points ago

I'm sure it is. But a metaphor of what, that's a question. I would quote Dionysos Ps. Aeropagite, one of the most important early church fathers whose texts were read and studied through whole (European) Middle Ages.

From Mystical Theology (ch. 3):

For is it not more true to affirm that God is Life and Goodness than that God is air or stone; and must we not deny to God more emphatically the attributes of inebriation and wrath than the applications of human speech and thought?

[–]JonoLith 0 points1 point ago

Oh yes. The concept of God is larger then we are. The Bible itself contains phrases like "God is Love." And Love is as metaphorical a concept as you can find.

As to heaven and hell, it's important that the Jewish tradition didn't have these kinds of concepts. Heaven, sure, because God had to be SOMEWHERE, but the concept of Hell was Jesus's, and he probably took it from the Greek tradition of Hades. In the end it's just a way to make "Good" and "Bad" clear.

[–]r3dfox8 0 points1 point ago

As Interesting as these replies are to ponder i just dont feel like they answer my question at all in a literal sense.

I am asking if a Christian sees parts of the bible as metaphorical then where do they draw the line? and how can they claim on out-there idea is a metaphor and another a literal "thing".

Do you see God as an idea for the unexplainable underpinnings of universe, or as a sentient creator? I want a black and white answer to this. I know i will get told there is no black and white answer to this but i feel like the majority of believers do see God, angels, heaven etc as literal constructs.

Also, if the ideas and teachings of the bible are just metaphors and lessons to help us understand and live better lives then where does the church fit into this? with its worship and iconography is there even a need for it?

[–]satissuperque 0 points1 point ago

Also, if the ideas and teachings of the bible are just metaphors and lessons to help us understand and live better lives then where does the church fit into this? with its worship and iconography is there even a need for it?

Further metaphors? And btw, even atheists consider ritual and sacred buildings important (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/26/alain-de-botton-temple-atheism).

[–]r3dfox8 0 points1 point ago

So the church is basically metaphors wrapped in metaphors wrapped in whatever suits it at the time?

Humans enjoy ritual in many aspects of life, this is well know? And on the subject of sacred buildings i love churches, I just spent a weekend in Rome and a lot of that time was spent admiring the many churchs. I can also appreciate the significance of the other historical sites around the city and enjoyed just being there and "feeling" the place. I don't see how this relates to my questions?

[–]JonoLith 0 points1 point ago

You want a Black and White answer eh?

Unfortunately Religion isn't Science, and that will simply never be the case. The hardest part of being human is admitting you can't be certain about everything.

[–]nopaniers 14 points15 points ago

Hey mate,

Have a look at http://www.biologos.org. They've got a questions section which answers a lot of these.

I also like this article

Hope these help!

[–]Mapes 5 points6 points ago

Along with biologos this book helps explain what you're looking for.

[–]Gimme_Some_Sunshine 1 point2 points ago

I cannot upvote you and Mapes enough for showing me this website. Thanks guys!

[–]Phnglui 12 points13 points ago

Simple. The creation myth is simply a counter-myth where the priests took popular creation myths of the time (especially the Enuma Elish) and replaced the protagonist with Yahweh, whereby they said, "the god you are worshipping isn't Marduk, but Yahweh." It was never meant to be a scientific book.

[–]thefran 5 points6 points ago

I do not see it to be a straight up creation myth, for it lacks typical elements of it. I see it more of a counterargument, meaning your stars and moon and sun aren't gods at all.

[–]zspade 5 points6 points ago

As a Christian, how do you reconcile this level of knowledge about the origins of the bible with with continued faith in it's validity?

Genuine question, I'm not not trying to spark an argument.

[–]Phnglui 14 points15 points ago

I'm completely opposed to the concept of biblical inerrancy, and I see that doctrine as a form of idolatry. The Bible was never written from a scientific perspective, but from a historical and cultural perspective. Genesis contains centuries and centuries of oral tradition, myths and legends that explain who the Israelites are and where they come from, where they fit in among the Canaanite tribes. It by no means has to be a literal story because it's ripe in lessons on humanity and our relationship with God.

[–]zspade 1 point2 points ago

Thanks for the explanation. I'm working hard to pull my girlfriend away from, as you so eloquently put it, 'biblical inerrancy' (world is 5000 years old and so on. I'm not trying to take her away from christianity, just biblical literalism\inerrancy. It certainly helps to hear this perspective!

[–]aflamp 1 point2 points ago

If she has any respect for St. Augustine and his theology, check out this quote

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation. --St. Augustine in his book The Literal Interpretation of Genesis in which he argued against a literal interpretation.

tl;dr St. Augustine said that the Bible is concerned with issues of faith not science. When science and faith collide, faith must give way (at least if the issue is one of science).

[–]zspade 1 point2 points ago

Ah, a bit like the quote often attributed to Galileo "The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go."

[–]aflamp 0 points1 point ago

Exactly like that.

[–]Duke_Newcombe 0 points1 point ago

I'm still trying to fathom why you believe that the bible states that the earth is 5,000 years old, when it does not such thing. Enlighten me, please?

[–]zspade 0 points1 point ago

It's a product of people finding dates in the bible that correlate with recorded history, and then counting back to 'Numbers' and then to Adam and eve. It works a bit like tree ring dating. We know the atmospheric composition leaves certain tell tale traces in the rings of trees, so we can see which tree's lives overlapped one another. We can start from where we are at and count backward via the overlap, and confirm our findings by radiometric dating of the elements surrounding the trees/in the same sedimentary layer.

How is this similar? People took all of the begetting stuff in 'Numbers' and counted backward through all of the overlapping lives until they got back to Adam and Eve.

There is also this:

2000 years go Jesus(Yeshua) lived, right? 1000 years before that we come to the time of David and Solomon. 1000 years before that We come to Abraham, and finally 1000 years before that we come to Enoch(Son of Cain, who was the son of Adam). From there we use the method from 'Numbers' to count back to the Adam and Eve, and it comes out to about 1000 years prior. Sorry, I was off by 1000 years, it's 6000 years old.

Edit: Of course I personally think this is malarky, and doesn't correlate with any history pre-judaism.

[–]Duke_Newcombe 0 points1 point ago

I understand this methodology in "reverse calculation" in arriving at the 6,000 year old earth. This doesn't address how much time transpired between the events (either real or allegorical), and the time that they were recorded/committed to a writing. It could be a century, a few millenia, or tens of thousands.

And then, there's the whole "it isn't in the Bible" thing to contend with.

[–]Duke_Newcombe 0 points1 point ago

I understand this methodology in "reverse calculation" in arriving at the 6,000 year old earth. This doesn't address how much time transpired between the events (either real or allegorical), and the time that they were recorded/committed to a writing. It could be a century, a few millenia, or tens of thousands.

And then, there's the whole "it isn't in the Bible" thing to contend with.

[–]zspade 0 points1 point ago

I'm just explaining why some people believe the bible says the world is 6000 years old. Honestly I was just playing devil's advocate. It's arguable that 'it isn't in the bible' because every event I listed was, and many did have time tables/lifespans.

I was also going to argue on historical evidence outside the bible; Such as when King Solomon lived... then I discovered there are no records outside the bible that he even existed... and kings are usually well recorded. That alone destroys the entire 6000 year old argument, because it means it has to be allegory.

TL:DR - King Solomon and David probably weren't real(allegory), and that breaks method of counting back...

[–]s_s 0 points1 point ago

Nothing you've said above contradicts biblical inerrancy.

[–]Phnglui 3 points4 points ago

Do I have to say anything against biblical inerrancy to not believe in it?

[–]s_s -1 points0 points ago

I don't understand why you led with that statement.

[–]Phnglui 5 points6 points ago

Because of zspade's comment, "how do you reconcile this level of knowledge about the origins of the bible with with continued faith in it's validity?" Biblical validity is subjective, and I wanted to make it clear that inerrancy isn't what makes the Bible valid to me.

[–]zspade 1 point2 points ago

If you read some of his other comments, in this very thread, you'll get a clearer picture of his views in practice. I actually asked him this question after reading a couple of his other comments.

[–]snarkinturtle 1 point2 points ago

Why would it? That wasn't the question being answered.

[–]JoeCoder 0 points1 point ago

Yet Jesus and other New Testament writers seemed to hold all of this in high regard. Consider his harsh words to the pharisees in John 5:46-47:

If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?

If you don't trust Jesus about the past, why do you trust him about the future (salvation / heaven) ?

[–]Phnglui 0 points1 point ago

Don't get me wrong. I hold the Bible in high regard. I think it's one of the most useful books we have in the world. But the infallible Word of God it is not.

Furthermore, the Five Books of Moses were probably not written solely by Moses. There's a good chance that Moses is the original source of a lot of it, but in its current form, it has multiple authors.

Furthermore, the Creation myth no doubt predates Moses by many, many, many generations. The idea that the stories of Genesis did not exist until Moses is a baffling idea because it spits in the face of the history of God.

why do you trust him about the future (salvation / heaven) ?

I don't worry myself about personal salvation either way.

[–]JoeCoder 0 points1 point ago*

The idea that the stories of Genesis did not exist until Moses is a baffling idea

I agree. The Mari Archive hints that the first parts of Genesis may have been written much earlier. But in Jewish vernacular, the writing of Moses meant the Torah. In Exodus, perhaps the most likely to be written by Moses, you find:

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

[–]Phnglui 0 points1 point ago

And suddenly the reasoning for that commandment changes during Moses's sermon across the Jordan:

Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; you shall not do any work--you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your ox or your ass, or any of your cattle, or the stranger in your settlements, so that your male and female slave may rest as you do. Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and the LORD your God freed you from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the sabbath day. [Deuteronomy 5.12-15]

Moses says in Deut. 5.5 that these are the words spoken at Sinai, yet the reasons for the Sabbath are different. Isn't that a bit odd, if Moses wrote the entirety of the Torah?

[–]JoeCoder 0 points1 point ago

Can't they both be the reason? This doesn't seem odd at all.

[–]Phnglui 0 points1 point ago

It seems odd that at the Sinai episode of Exodus, the explanation given is the Creation and only the Creation. And then in Deuteronomy, Moses claims to quote what Yahweh said at Sinai, and quotes the exodus as the reason and only the exodus. What's odd is that if he truly did write both examples, he really should have remembered the words that were spoken to him by God. Both being the reason wouldn't be a problem if both reasons were presented in either case.

[–]JoeCoder 0 points1 point ago

In different speeches, you can hear a president give different and non-conflicting rationale for a new economic plan.

[–]jij -1 points0 points ago

short answer: faith

long answer: oh my gosh, so it turns out that answers are not just handed to you and you might have to actually search and learn and find stuff out on your own and make some decisions and do soul searching... who would have guessed life would be like that! :p

[–]erythro 3 points4 points ago

Enuma Elish:

The epic names two primeval gods: Apsû (or Abzu) who represents fresh water, and Tiamat representing oceanic waters. Several other gods are created (Ea and his brothers) who reside in Tiamat's vast body. They make so much noise that the babel or noise annoys Tiamat and Apsû greatly. Apsû wishes to kill the young gods, but Tiamat disagrees. The vizier, Mummu, agrees with Apsû's plan to destroy them. Tiamat, in order to stop this from occurring, warns Ea (Nudimmud), the most powerful of the gods. Ea uses magic to put Apsû into a coma, then kills him, and shuts Mummu out. Ea then becomes the chief god, and along with his consort Damkina, has a son, Marduk, greater still than himself. Marduk is given wind to play with and he uses the wind to make dust storms and tornadoes. This disrupts Tiamat's great body and causes the gods still residing inside her to be unable to sleep.
They persuade Tiamat to take revenge for the death of her husband, Apsû. Her power grows, and some of the gods join her. She creates 11 monsters to help her win the battle and elevates Kingu, her new husband, to "supreme dominion." A lengthy description of the other gods' inability to deal with the threat follows. Marduk offers to save the gods if he is appointed as their leader and allowed to remain so even after the threat passes. When the gods agree to Marduk's conditions he is selected as their champion against Tiamat, and becomes very powerful. Marduk challenges Tiamat to combat and destroys her. He then rips her corpse into two halves with which he fashions the earth and the skies. Marduk then creates the calendar, organizes the planets and stars, and regulates the moon, the sun, and weather.
The gods who have pledged their allegiance to Tiamat are initially forced into labor in the service of the gods who sided with Marduk. But they are freed from these labors when Marduk then destroys Tiamat's husband, Kingu and uses his blood to create humankind to do the work for the gods. Babylon is established as the residence of the chief gods—the chief gods who made much babel or noise. Finally, the gods confer kingship on Marduk, hailing him with fifty names. Most noteworthy is Marduk's symbolic elevation over Enlil, who was seen by earlier Mesopotamian civilizations as the king of the gods.

Gosh, the similarity is astonishing /s

[–]johntheChristian 6 points7 points ago

Hah, i've always thought this myself. I am a theistic evolutionist and i have no problem reading genesis as a (meaningful) creation myth, but to claim that the Hebrew Creation myth is ripped right from enuma elish is ridiculous.

Not to mention the whole mithras/jesus nonsense.

[–]Phnglui -1 points0 points ago

See my response to the comment. The opening words of Genesis are very clearly meant to invoke the scenery from Enuma Elish.

[–]johntheChristian 0 points1 point ago

I see, sorry for the misunderstanding.

[–]Phnglui 1 point2 points ago

The similarities occur in the opening of Genesis 1. "The earth was formless and void, and a wind from God was swooping over the waters of tehom" (the Deep). Tehom in Hebrew is similar to the name Tiamat. The imagery of God's winds swooping over the Deep seems to be an obvious comparison to Marduk, who had just used the winds to slay Tiamat, preparing to create the firmament and the earth. Now that the ancient reader is given a picture of God in the same position as Marduk at the end of the battle, we see the story contrast by saying that God is a master of all things by creating everything.

[–]erythro 0 points1 point ago

The word ruach is used throughout the bible to mean spirit - not just the spirit of god but with people as well. I can give examples if you request so. It is a long stretch to say this complex word used throughout the bible is merely an imported Babylonian deity.

Tehom in Hebrew is similar to the name Tiamat.

Like.. kinda. Not enough to clinch it. If everything else fitted, I might tentatively give this idea some credence. Otherwise, it's just wishful thinking.

The imagery of God's winds swooping over the Deep seems to be an obvious comparison to Marduk, who had just used the winds to slay Tiamat, preparing to create the firmament and the earth.

I can't see an astonishing similarity between God's spirit/breath/breeze/wind/mind being over the darkness of the deep and a storm deity having done battle with a dragon, being about to rip him in half. Especially since your only point not instantly dispensable is that the word for "dragon" sounds a bit like the word for "deep".

[–]crapnovelist 0 points1 point ago

The similarity is in their flood-myth: the gods decide to cleanse the world of humanity by flooding, but one directs Uta-Napishti to build a giant boat and bring two of every animal (some versions also have him bringing 2 people of every profession: a doctor, a carpenter, a soldier, a farmer, and their accompanying wives). Uta-Napishti thus saves human and animal life, and is rewarded with immortality. Starting to sound familiar?

[–]Phnglui 0 points1 point ago

That's another similarity between Israelite and Babylonian mythologies. Notice that Marduk's weapon of choice is a bow, and when the flood is over, Yahweh displays a rainbow to show that He'll never attack the earth again. The similarities exist throughout Genesis, and it's very common for neighboring cultures to borrow each others' stories.

[–]erythro 0 points1 point ago

The flood myth is around in pretty much every culture in the area - even ancient greek mythology has it. Some cite this as evidence it was part of a shared myth, as it would be what you expect if that happened. Some cite this as evidence it is true, as it would be what you expect if that happened.

[–]redlightnetherlands 2 points3 points ago

Considering the sun wasn't even "created" until the 4th day of creation, how did a "day" even exist in the typical 24 hour sense?

I think if creation is to be taken as performed by God, its pretty clear that it didn't happen in a typical 24 hour day as creationists would say. A day to God could be a billion years..

How did God create vegetation on the third day if he didn't create the sun until the fourth day? Theres a mindbending thought.

[–]Phnglui 1 point2 points ago

Considering the sun wasn't even "created" until the 4th day of creation, how did a "day" even exist in the typical 24 hour sense?

See my replies to delk82 for an explanation of this.

A day to God could be a billion years..

A man approaches God and asks, "Dear Lord, what is a second to You?" The Lord says, "One billion years." So then man asks, "Oh Lord, what is a penny to you?" "A billion dollars," says God. So the man asks, "Can I have a penny?" "In a second," says God.

How did God create vegetation on the third day if he didn't create the sun until the fourth day? Theres a mindbending thought.

Because He creates light on the first day. The Sun and Moon in Genesis are said to be sources of light, but light itself is said to have existed since day 1.

[–]redlightnetherlands 0 points1 point ago

The only point I'll argue with, because I wasn't questioning the definition of "a day", is that just because light existed, without the sun, moon, and even stars, NOTHING on life would have existed, period. There is no way around this.

The surface temperature of the earth without the sun would completely devoid all life.

[–]Phnglui 0 points1 point ago

I'm well aware. But knowing this, it's just not possible to reconcile Genesis 1 with what happened scientifically. Either there were 7 literal days, or the writers were wrong about what happened in the beginning. (Although even if they're wrong, there's quite a bit of useful knowledge about God in the text.)

[–]TheVoiceofTheDevil 2 points3 points ago

To be, or not to be, that is the question:

Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer

The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,

Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,

And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep

No more; and by a sleep, to say we end

The heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks

That Flesh is heir to?

You'll notice that what is in this quotation, though a question, is absolutely true.

Hamlet has not been struck with slings nor arrows and does not ponder the option of arming himself and attacking a sea.

It's truth has nothing to do with slings, nor arrows, nor arms, nor a sea. Those are simply dust on what is truly important.

[–]cardinalwolsey 2 points3 points ago

The bible tells you the bare minimum of what you need to understand the ethical and theological message. You can't tell illiterate peasants how evolution works because not only is that useless to them as peasents it is completelly irrelevant to the message of the bible. THe bible doesn't give an age of the earth. Nor does it say anything for or against evolutoin.

MY theory is that adam was the first conciouss human being and that all science is correct. Funny story. The pope agrees with me.

[–]delk82 1 point2 points ago

The hebrew word translated as "day" can easily be translated as a period of time. Hugh Ross has a great book titled A Matter of Days which tackles this subject.

[–]Phnglui 2 points3 points ago

"And there was evening, and there was morning: one day."

This argument simply doesn't work because the creation myth flat out tells us what kind of day it is. It also shows God creating the sun as a marker to show when the day ends.

[–]zspade 5 points6 points ago

What timezone do you think god was in durning that time? Some parts of the world. Alaska can go 82 days without a sunset. How fast was the rotation of the earth back then? If God has mastery over all things, then time surely must be one of them.

[–]Phnglui 3 points4 points ago

What timezone do you think god was in durning that time?

The only time zone that the people writing about the story knew about: Israel Standard Time.

How fast was the rotation of the earth back then?

The ancient Israelites has no concept of the idea of a revolving earth.

[–]zspade 2 points3 points ago

Ahh, I see you were just destroying the efficacy of the 'who knows what time is to god?' argument through scriptural ambiguity by showing it wasn't ambiguous at all.

[–]Phnglui 3 points4 points ago

Right. Genesis clearly defines a day. God created light, and separated light from darkness. He called the light day, and the darkness night. And then there was evening, and then morning: one day. He then creates the sun and moon as markers to show us what time and date it is. It cannot be interpreted to mean anything but a literal 24 hour time period. Therefore, either you can take Genesis 1 to be symbolic, or you can take it to be literal. There's no spinning a 7 day creation into the earth's current age.

[–]delk82 1 point2 points ago

The Sun isn't made until the 4th "day". So, how can the first three days be 24-hour spans if there's no Sun?

[–]Phnglui 2 points3 points ago

Because according to Genesis, the Sun is not the original source of light. In fact, the Sun and Moon are made to designate when day and night are.

And God made the two big lights--the bigger light for regulation of the day and the smaller light for regulation of the night--and the stars. [Gen. 1.16]

We know that a day in this Creation is "evening, then morning." We know that on the first day, God created light, and called the light day and the darkness night. And then on the fourth night, God made the sun for regulation of the day.

The ancient writers of Genesis 1 had no idea that we revolve around the sun. They had no concept of the modern earth. In fact, they were convinced that the sky is blue because the firmament is an invisible wall that has water behind it.

[–]m0pi1 1 point2 points ago

You will find what you are looking for here.

[–]drew-face -1 points0 points ago

interesting article. one thing of note which i see a lot of people ignorant of the bible do is overlook that our english translation of the old and new testament is fundamentally flawed and that a lot of insight into what the author of each book may have meant can be found in the original ancient greek or ancient hebrew versions.

example

The Hebrew verb translated “created” in Isaiah 42:5 is bara’ which has as its primary definition “bringing into existence something new, something that did not exist before.”

[–]bokdoly 1 point2 points ago

The point of the Bible is as a guide. Not as a scientific paper. Otherwise you are doing it wrong. You cannot go wrong with Jesus. Do the things he says, which are about your inside, not exterior things. And things outside will be revealed.

Where did it say to take the Bible exactly literally, or not, that is a device of religion and science. Jesus transcends both.

Before we debate dinosaurs and carbon dating, have you tried honoring your Mother and Father? Not that easy. Have you repented? For what you ask? Therein may lie the problem.

[–]aletheia 1 point2 points ago

You may find some questions from our FAQ helpful.

[–]AvrahambenYosef 3 points4 points ago

Alright i'm going to do my best try not to judge to harshly :]

To answer questions 1 and 4 we need to take a look at Genesis I'm in a new international version bible by the way.

Okay so God's perception of time is totally different than ours what may be considered a millenia for us may be a day for him. So the seven days of creation could be a span of millions of years, from this perspective God may of created the beast of the earth and sea and then made humans and a different time period for us also if you look into biblical creatures such as the behemoth and the leviathan the descriptions of such animals seem to describe dinosaurs that still inhabited the earth.

I wish I knew where I read a lot of things but I do remember reading of corrupted forms of humans that had bred with the demons that were cast from grace if you find this please post it.

I don't understand what you mean by humans have only developed in the past 60 years and I would appreciate some clarity. same with tricks of the devil.

Shalom

[–]ghostyhouse[S] 5 points6 points ago

To clarify, I'm asking if the science that's been developed in the past 60 years, which tells us how old the earth is, and how old ancient bodies are, if they are reliable sources or not.

[–]shelluniverse 4 points5 points ago

Most of the estimates for the age of the Earth come from radiometric dating. The process goes like this: say you have a sample of rock and you want to know how old it is, e.g. how long it has been since it first formed. How would you find out? Certain atoms decay slowly over time; they change into other, lighter elements. If you observe how many of these lighter elements appear in your sample, you can make inferences about how long its been around since it first formed.

It's also very reliable. For example, uranium-lead dating has been "refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years". source

[–]cephas_rock 3 points4 points ago

This is a great answer.

Ghostyhouse, I'm a Christian, but the Earth is very, very old, much older than 6000 years. Independent of the science, there are many Biblical indications that the Bible's Origins account is a symbolic folktale (I can go into it if you'd like). Alongside the science, we're sure that it must be a symbolic folktale.

But that's okay! The degree to which the Origins account is literal has been an open issue since the earliest centuries of Christianity, precisely because of those Biblical clues. Now, based on the scientific evidence, especially that which has accrued over the past 150 years, we can be very confident that those early Christian theologians who favored a symbolic reading were correct.

[–]runamuckalot 2 points3 points ago

there are many Biblical indications that the Bible's Origins account is a symbolic folktale (I can go into it if you'd like)

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this?

[–]cephas_rock 1 point2 points ago

Sure. As I said, from the earliest centuries of Christianity, the literary mode of the Origins account has been an open question. All evidence seems to point to it being a folktale.

  • The Days are not in chronological order, but they are in "numerological" order. The numbers "3" and "7" are important "completion" numbers, and the pattern of the Creation Days contains 3 overlapping "3 days later" patterns (light->luminaries 3 days later, air/sea->fish/birds 3 days later, land->land animals 3 days later).

  • The events of Genesis 2 are not the same as that which is found in Genesis 1.

  • Genesis 3 says that the talking snake was a clever beast. Later, in Revelation (and Wisdom), we're told that Satan is the ancient serpent. Literalists attempt to reconcile this by saying that Satan possessed a snake, but that's an added, invented detail. The simpler explanation is that the snake in the folktale symbolizes Satan (and its "serpent-curse" symbolizes a curse upon Satan).

  • "Life Tree" and "Knowledge Tree" seem like folk symbols.

  • Cain found his wife in a foreign land. Furthermore, Cain was worried about being killed by foreigners for his crime.

As Origen (3rd century theologian) said:

What man of sense will agree with the statement that the first, second and third days, in which the evening is named and the morning, were without sun, moon and stars? What man is found such an idiot as to suppose that God planted trees in Paradise like a husbandman? I believe every man must hold these things for images under which a hidden sense is concealed.

[–]nightfly13 2 points3 points ago

So I'm a YEC and I'll try to explain how I sleep well at night in light of radiometric dating. Let's say Genesis 1-2 are pretty literal. On the third day God created trees and vegetation. Now if you or I walk up to that tree we think it's probably 20-50 years old, whatever. But it was created earlier that morning. It probably has rings if you take a core sample. The God of the Bible is capable of that. Same thing later with Adam. You and I walk up and see him, we figure he's a mature, grown man, 25+ years old. Nope (Chuck Testa), he's actually 5 seconds old. He looks older, as does the tree, as do the atoms in the uranium-lead. I expect to be downvoted, but I'm a rational human and this is logical to me.

If I'm wrong about this, my faith in Jesus Christ will weather the storm.

[–]AvrahambenYosef 2 points3 points ago

I absolutely love this wording you've used I wish I had your writing skills, a thought process of mine is that "God must do the unbelievable to make people believe."

[–]Tocco42 1 point2 points ago

This really made me think! that was a very interesting point that i have never thought of before. GREAT POST

[–]daymoose 0 points1 point ago*

The only thing that troubles me about this hypothesis is the apparent implication that God is intentionally trying to deceive us.

Let's say that we're on Earth and we see a supernova -- that is, a star reaching the end of its life and "exploding." If the star is one million light-years away from earth (and astronomers have fairly reliable ways of measuring stellar distances), it follows that the star must have died one million years ago for the light from the supernova event to reach us today. But if the world is only 6,000 years old, then God would have had to create starlight in transit... originating from a star that never existed in the first place.

[–]nightfly13 0 points1 point ago

Let's say that this is all true, that he created starlight in transit, I don't think the sure implication is that his intention was to deceive us. I won't attempt to speak for God in explaining his motivation, but we don't have to assume the worst, either.

[–]AvrahambenYosef 1 point2 points ago

Thanks for the clarification! however I have no idea how to answer that I apologize.

[–]US_Hiker 1 point2 points ago

[talkorigins.org](talkorigins.org) is an excellent resource for any of the criticisms that creationist apologeticists usually throw towards mainstream science. I recommend perusing what they have to say on radiometric dating - not just how valid it is, but how the dates mesh up with things like models of planetary formation, giving a synchronicity for the dates that is far stronger than from either method alone.

[–]captainhaddock 1 point2 points ago*

There are literally dozens of dating methods used for everything from rock layers to organic remains, fossils, ice caps, lake beds, earth and the solar system, and so on — and there is no discrepancy in the dates they give. There is no doubt whatsoever that the earth is 4.54 billion years old, that life has been evolving on earth for most of that time, and that humans much like you and I co-existed with the Neanderthals, a closely related hominid branch, until about 30,000 years ago. These are as well established as the fact that germs cause disease or that the earth orbits the sun. (Two other facts the authors of the Bible weren't aware of, incidentally.)

Genesis wasn't written all that long ago. It is literarily dependent on older books of the Hebrew Bible as well as on a rich heritage of older Canaanite and Mesopotamian literature with similar stories about creation, a great flood, and so on. Genesis was simply telling Judaeans what was already common "knowledge" to them and using it to tie together their belief in Yahweh and the origins of their nation.

The vast majority of Christians around the world accept all this. It is largely the American evangelical church, influenced by the Fundamentalist movement of the early twentieth century and the creationist movement of the Seventh-Day Adventist church, that has turned the Bible into an idol and a science textbook in misguided attempt to refute both secular science and sound Biblical scholarship.

I think that whatever non-denominational church you attend has seriously let you down in the area of Biblical literacy as well as in theology and basic common sense with regard to science.

[–]Londron 1 point2 points ago*

"if they are reliable sources or not."

You know what the job of a scientist is?

Trying to proof their teachers wrong.

To put it in perspective.

millions of scientists around the globe, right now. Are trying to find holes in every scientific theory imaginable.

Why you ask? Because if they do we are one step closer to understanding nature. It would become more accurate. They might even win the Nobel price for doing so. Think about Einstein. He improved the teachings of Newton.

Please. Don't trust those people talking out of their asses, thinking they know what's wrong with evolution, geology etc.

I mean think about it. Every day a few million people are working around the topic of evolution for example. People who pretty much study their entire life for it. Trying to make it more accurate. But that one guy who writes a website, makes videos about it, or makes a lecture in front of an audience would know?

Please...you have no issues accepting medicine from your doctor but somehow we wouldn't be able to figure out how old a piece of rock is. Seriously.

[–]AvrahambenYosef 0 points1 point ago

but if you learn this answer i would be very pleased if you would share it with me

[–]thepotatoman23 0 points1 point ago

Indeed the bible doesn't mention anything about time in terms of creation except for the seven days so I don't know where anyone gets the 6000 year old myth.

For the seven days thing there is a lot of talk about this being a lost in translation thing and the original intent is much closer to something like you are talking about.

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html

[–]bukkake_warrior 0 points1 point ago

If you add up the dates in the bible starting from Adam, you get about ~2000 years until the flood. You are given the exact ages of everyone so its very easy to do. As well the dates add up to about ~4000 from the flood to Today. Even the scientific evidence on the earth points to a world wide flood ~4000 years ago. And that's how the 6000yo earth is proven.

[–]kierkegaarden 2 points3 points ago

Read the FAQ

[–]ghostyhouse[S] 7 points8 points ago

Just looked through, didn't find any part that answered my question. Maybe I'm missing it.

[–]marievska 1 point2 points ago

For one, here's an old thread that tries to reconcile the first few chapters of Genesis with the theory of Evolution.

[–]1brooklyn1 0 points1 point ago*

I'd recommend a Jewish scientist, Gerald Schroeder, he's written several books that tie together your questions and the bible.

Also I'll add, if the bible is as it is, written by god, its meaning will go beyond anything we can begin to understand. Perhaps science and the bible are both correct, but could we even scratch the surface of what this relationship means? I think not. We know a lot, sure, but we are exceptionally far from understanding the workings of the universe as well as the content of the bible. This is, at least, my humble opinion.

[–]Phnglui 2 points3 points ago

It wasn't written by God. It was inspired by him but is no means even claimed that he holds authorship of it.

[–]Kraznor 2 points3 points ago

Echo this. Was written by people in fact, human beings like you and me. Well, less literate and lacking a lot of the knowledge we have today. But still, people.

[–]1brooklyn1 0 points1 point ago

Sorry, what I meant was inspired by God and the word of God, i was writing late and getting lazy. Regardless of this, it still remains that if it is inspired by of God, even if it is written by ordinary people, the text will not simply contain the depth I meaning a human could create. They will create an infinite level of meaning, layers upon layers because of the inspiration of God.

Edit. This sort of makes me laugh too, did it sound like I meant god wrote the book and shot it down to earth from heaven?

[–]brodyqc 0 points1 point ago

Do you think Christians are all biblical literalists or what? There's nothing here that gives me the slightest pause.

[–]MarcusMinuciusFelix 0 points1 point ago

These are the three verses that help me do the mental gymnastics:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. -Gen 1:1

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. -2 Peter 3:8

For nothing is impossible with God. -Luke 1:37

There are many more than this, but frankly, when added up they amount to: God is God, God does things differently than we do, God can do anything he wants so long as it doesn't conflict with his character.

We need to remember that the people in the OT understood a lot about God through revelation--but didn't even expect the incarnation of Jesus. If we're looking to understand everything through the OT revelation about our natural world then we're out of bounds--many people didn't even see the type of savior that Jesus would be based on OT revelation. So in that sense, let God be God, He'll explain Himself in time.

[–]shawnturner 0 points1 point ago

Doubt is a normal part of faith, take heart. Science is just one more series of beliefs tied together by dogma, community, and goals. The love of God need not be exclusive to our physical understanding of the world.

Are the stories in the Bible true? "I have studied them all my life, and I find new truths in them every time." ~Mr. Worf

[–]Themehmeh 0 points1 point ago

I think it's important to note that Had god told them the science they would have dumbed it down anyway.

I also think if you sort of stretch it, Genesis can be a big huge factual metaphor. If you view the days as eons. You could say the Adam and Eve characters were cavemen or whatever pre-man Homo-something came before us. they could have lived in the time where the earth was warmer and jungle environments were more plentiful. As they evolved they gained Knowledge and with this knowledge they were now subject to morality. In addition the earth was changing and the "garden of eden" disappeared.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

How do we explain the earth being scientifically proven to be older than what the bible says?

The Bible makes no claim on the age of the earth as it is not a scientific text and was never meant to be treated as such. Genesis 1-2 addresses WHY we are here and not the HOW we are here. The central purpose of it is to explain man's relationship with God, with creation, and with others.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

If you have faith that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, that came to walk in obedience to God the Father, and died to take away all of your sins, and was raised up from the dead... why worry about the specifics of cavemen and carbon dating?

I'm not saying ignore those things, but the Bible says "the righteous shall live by faith," and "lean not on your own understanding." The scientific answers come secondary to our faith. For example, if you believe there was a worldwide flood, that would explain why there are dramatic geographical alterations that normally would have had to take millions of years to form. Scientists that don't believe the flood happened will explain it differently than a Christian scientists that knows the flood happened.

[–]letmegetback2uonthat 0 points1 point ago

So, blindly don't worry about it and you'll go to heaven. Also, how useful are Christian scientists?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

and you'll go to heaven

It's not about going to heaven, it's about having life now. (see John 10:10) As Ian Thomas puts it "Christianity is not getting man out of hell and into heaven, it's about getting God out of heaven and into man." (see John 14:17 and 2 Corinthians 13:5)

So if it's about how we live here and now, then how are Christians to live? The Bible says "The righteous shall live by faith" (See Hebrews 10:38) and "Without faith it is impossible to please God." (Hebrews 11:6)

So the Bible says that for the Christian, faith is primary. Faith isn't about ignorance, it's about trusting that what God says is true. And that is completely up to the individual to believe or not (I don't necessarily think it should be forced taught as the only point of view in public schools).

Also, how useful are Christian scientists?

I think Christian scientists are useful to other Christians who share the faith. Their premise is that of a world created by God, whereas non-Christian scientists study from a premise that doesn't believe in God, meaning their hypothesis and findings will also reflect that.

[–]johndeer89 0 points1 point ago

Check out the book The Mysterious of Creation. It's very interesting scientifically backed book. As unpopular as it is, there is a lot of evidence to support a creationism theory. The problem with Atheism is that it is not only a scientific approach, but a life philosophy, so this leaves some room for error in the scientific community. Of course the same can be said and should about creationist, but the point is, that there are very convincing arguments out there that at very least test the idea of Atheism. You'll just have to get use to being the minority in any belief.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]ghostyhouse[S] 1 point2 points ago

I'm talking about inbreeds.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points ago

Inbreds aren't "mutants", children who are inbred just have a higher chance of a recessive gene occuring in both parents, which effects the growth of the the fetus. This isn't really important though...

And what about inbreds? What does this have to do with contradicting the bible?

And in terms of science that has developed in the past 60 years and it's legitimacy, yes, it is reliable. If it wasn't reliable it wouldn't be accepted as science.

[–]Londron 1 point2 points ago

Well.

If you only have 2 members of a certain species left that species is labeled as extinct.

There is no way it will survive. Not enough diversity in DNA.

[–]unexpectedtofu 0 points1 point ago

The earth is extremely old, and even if you looked past all of the geological evidence there is the animal record. There is no vast conspiracy when it comes to dinosaur bones and missing links. The earth is an ecosystem, and when better surviving creatures emerge to take dominance, the creatures that can't adapt are wiped out.

Instead of going into a long explanation about evolution, age of the dinosaurs, etc etc I am going to leave you with a couple links about modern humans. There is no way besides natural selection for these traits to occur in us humans. If we were made in the perfect image of a God, everything we had would have a purpose. That is definitely not the case, as we still have leftover instincts and bodily structures from when we were less evolved.

Here are primitive reflexes ... interesting read but not as mindblowing as Human Vestigality. It's amazing when modern science and medicine can compare bone/muscle structures across the planet and realize how many different types of humans there really are nowadays. We have been evolving to fit our circumstances, and our circumstances are different all across the planet ... so we have evolved differently, but are still genetically close enought to produce offspring together.

I'm not trying to bash anyone here, it's just that I find humanity just amazingly interesting and beautiful. The more I learn the more excited I am about the future of our species. Instead of just waiting around for a doomsday that will burn the unbelievers in hellfire, we should be devoting time and resources towards making our current lives better all over the world and eventually reach out to the planets and stars ... once the world is done waging wars and killing each other over who is right about what happens to those killed.

[–]ICanLiftACarUp 0 points1 point ago*

Answering all of the above: so there's two stories of genesis right? The first story is the classic 6-day creation, and the second story sets forth no time spans. Both are, to me, in the genre of poetic narration, where the story is true but the words used and the different forms describing it aren't as literal as the rest of the Bible. Adam and Eve are both real and a personification of the first humans. There is the creation "adam" and the historical "adam."

So, the historical adam existed about 6,000 years ago, however the creation of adam up until that point resides in the narratives of the stories 1 and 2. This would be the time that the Hebrews began their history, and the stories are sort of setting up what was pre-history.

There is still quite a lot to explain with all of this, that I myself am trying to learn more about.

EDIT: forgot one...

  • Tricks of the devil. Satan is what we attribute to the temptations and influence into sinfulness. There may not be any real satan, existing as angels do/might, but it is the concept of what brings us into doing things against God's wants. Maybe you could elaborate more on what you mean by this question?

[–]KingSkeeze 0 points1 point ago

I may be able to help you somewhat, though I do need some clarification on a few things. When you say tricks of the devil what exactly do you mean? As for the age of the dinosaurs and the world the science behind the age of it is pretty sound. The carbon dating they do is pretty accurate as well as our science from the past 60 years I think has been pretty reliable for the most part. Do you not believe in evolution at all? Creationism?

[–]anitasmokeajoint -1 points0 points ago

I'm surprised no one has touched on this. science may have proen evolution wrong. I don't believe in the god of the bible and even disagree with much of the bible, let alone 'gods' decisions. I have done my research, however, in order to make an informed decision. if you like reading I highly recommend 'refuting evolution' by sarfati

[–]US_Hiker 0 points1 point ago

sarfati

Lol. I suggest you read the reviews for that book online - perhaps you'll learn some actual science from them.

[–]anitasmokeajoint 0 points1 point ago

I think it's redicilous that you'd turn up your nose and completely disagree with him without even taking the time to read what the man has to say. to be completely honest I'm disappointed with r/christianity... I'm not even Christian, but I've given it a chance and done my research, on both sides of the spectrum. I feel like I'm open minded enough to hear out other people opinions- but that's just my opinion and not everyone has to feel the same way as me

[–]US_Hiker 1 point2 points ago

So, is this guy lying when he talks about how much Sarfati leaves out? It's certainly credible to me, both in how he knows what he's talking about (the review), and from having a history of reading Ken Ham's pathetic shite. Hell, Ken Ham being allied with this guy is enough for me to not take him seriously - if he agrees with it in this field, he's wrong.

[–]anitasmokeajoint -1 points0 points ago

my mistake, I do have refuting evolution at my disposal an although I haven't read it I did just look through it and... damn! is it ever vague. I also have refuting evolution 2, also quite disappointing. the book I read was 'the greatest hoax on earth' by sarfati. apologies.

[–]anitasmokeajoint -1 points0 points ago

also id like to ad, I don't disagree with some of the review. he may well be a greedy, money hoarding explicit; the first impression I got from his physical appearance was that he's an absolute loser. all I'm saying is that he makes valid points in his book and if the poster is looking for a view from a Christian he addresses those questions. Dawkins makes equally valid points. I'm not trying to be a cheerleader for god or Christianity. I certainly haven't led a Christian lifestyle. all you have to do is read some of my posts or comments to know that. I'm just giving an answer to the poster.

[–]US_Hiker 0 points1 point ago

I don't care about his greed that you talk about (and didn't know about it, honestly). I do care about his science. Or, in this case, his lack of science. He and Dawkins (well, he and science) make competing claims - both cannot be 'equally valid'. One wins and one loses. The problem with Sarfati, Ham, Gish et al is that they ignore or misrepresent the science to make it look like they have a case when they in fact have none.

Read the book at your computer with talkorigins.org open, and glance at their pages on the issues. I think you'll find a world more proof out there for the scientific position than Sarfati claims exists.

[–]jij -1 points0 points ago

http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/280x280/9576199.jpg

[–]Christian661 -2 points-1 points ago*

Maybe God put dinosaur bones in the ground just to troll us

Edit: It was a joke. Jeez

[–]rogue780 -1 points0 points ago

I tend to lean towards the 3 earth ages idea...but I'm in the minority.

[–]johntheChristian -1 points0 points ago

Evolution is not antithetical to the Christian faith. The first chapter of genesis is written in a highly poetic, almost songlike, form. Just as we do not always take the prophesies of revelation literally because of their literary genre, we do not have to take the creation myth literally either.

What i learn from genesis 1, is not a step by step outline for the creation of the universe, but rather that we owe our existence to God, that we have wronged him, but that he will (and since has) provided a way for us to be reconciled to him. Just because there was no snake, woman, man and garden doesn't make the passage any less true or meaningful.

[–]bukkake_warrior 0 points1 point ago

Poetic? Well its a poem that explains what god did. And clearly outlines 6 24 hour days.

[–]johntheChristian 0 points1 point ago

I have a hard time believing a poem that speaks of several days prior to the creation of the sun (the thing we use to measure days) is a highly literal scientific work.

[–]bukkake_warrior 0 points1 point ago

Well that's between you and god that you don't believe in the creation that he has described pretty clearly to us.

[–]johntheChristian 0 points1 point ago*

I love how many atheists have so much in common with the fundamentalists they like to ridicule.

Christians were positing non literal readings of Genesis centuries ago. Paul In Galatians read the story of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar allegorically (even used the WORD allegory). The allegorical tradition in Christianity is not some new thing invented to counter modern thought but rather goes back as far as Paul (writing less than 30 years after Christ) and even past Christ into the Jewish faith.

You certainly have the right to your opinion, and the right to believe it and pass it on as truth. But to claim that your particular rending of the meaning of a book that has been poured over, analyzed and debated, memorized and interpreted by countless people over thousands of years is the only valid or intellectually honest reading is the height of arrogance.

[–]TheHadMatter -1 points0 points ago

you have to remember that the bible was written hundreds of years after christs death. a lot of things can get messed up in that period of time especially things written in the old testament. hell, for all we know god came and mutated some monkeys to make man as he is today and it wasn't a literal 7 days. it is more plausible that god didn't make the world in a literal 7 days as he is probably not bound by time and space. so you could say that he made the world in 7 days but it took a couple of billion years to do so.

[–]Studog -1 points0 points ago

hi so maybe someone has already answered this, but i have a headache and dont want to read everything just to check... but carbon dating has been proven inaccurate for anything dating back past 5000 years.. tricks of the devil are exactly that... TRICKS OF THE DEVIL - he tries to trick and deceive us, make us question ourselves, our faith, our God, and he has been very successful as we just look into the world.. Dinosaurs, these are mentioned in Job, they are called "dragons" but this was the term for dinosaurs up to the last few decades.. we only start calling dragons "dragons" when they were made into the fire-breathing beasts of modern day cinema.. mutated humans - i cant explain, my friend is a professor of theology, i am sure he will know.. I really hope this has been useful for you and i will make sure to search for the exact reference in Job, cause like i said i have a huge headache and cant think of it..

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 10411 on app-03 running 86c9e1d.