The Bible

[kimmy]

It is quite clear that the Genesis text talks about a GLOBAL deluge. Not a regional one (even though the story is not to be taken literally, and is inspired by catastrophic inundations that have occured times and times again in the Mesopotamian plains).

And if it were a local flood, why do they seem so convinced that the ark ended up on Mt Ararat? A local flood couldn't have floated the ark to the top of the highest peaks in the region.

BTW, I have two questions. When dix the Déluge occur? Are we all Noah's descendants?

The betsy fact is proven once again. The Bible is to be taken literally... except when it contradicts betsy's sayings, in which case what is written is subject to interpretation.

Did we ever get "facts" explaining the Adam's Rib story, or how Lot's wife was spontaneously transformed into a pillar of salt? These Bible stories certainly seem to contradict one of betsy's earlier "facts", a "finished creation" where matter can not be created.

-k

[GostHacked]

Besty is still trollin like a pro.

[dre]

Besty is still trollin like a pro.

Yeah well people keep talking to it!

[CANADIEN]

God's time. God's days.

No no no no betsy. You insist that the Genesis creation text be taken literally, you gotta take it literally.

The text is quite clear: seven days. Seven 24-hours days. Anything else is interpretation, something incompatible with a literal reading.

Or are we in a presence of yet another betsy fact?

Edited August 26, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

So now you're complaining because he said he "didn't take the Bible literally." Just for the record, here's the complete statement:

He didn't want to confuse fact with faith, history with holiness, science with religion

You should follow his example.

[CANADIEN]

Eh? Of course you do know that in a way, that statement is only supporting the phenomenom of the Bible, right?

So they have no concept of bazillion. So what? Even if these ancient Biblical authors can only count one to ten...the fact still remains the same!

So far, the posted facts show that they did get most things scientifically right!

THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO!

That's the whole point...that obviously have to be pointed out to you!

You have made it quite clear previously that science "proves" the veracity of statements in the Bbile that the number of stars cannot be measured. Yet, it CAN be measured. So, what you claim proves the veracity of the Bible is not even factual in the first place.

Of course, most people of faith with understanding of science know that whether or not we can count the number of stars is irrelevant when it comes to acknowledge the Bible as the Word of God.

[betsy]

And if it were a local flood, why do they seem so convinced that the ark ended up on Mt Ararat? A local flood couldn't have floated the ark to the top of the highest peaks in the region.

What do you think is a "local" flood? Flooding of a small town?

Could it be a flooded region too?

Did we ever get "facts" explaining the Adam's Rib story, or how Lot's wife was spontaneously transformed into a pillar of salt?

Speaking of Adam's ribs, do you know that ribs regenerate?

Anyway, why are you looking for things that are not listed? If it's not listed, obviously there's nothing imperical to show you (yet)....and of course, you wouldn't take my words based on faith alone.

Instead, why not deal with the 53 listed ones? Those are supported.

These Bible stories certainly seem to contradict one of betsy's earlier "facts", a "finished creation" where matter can not be created.-k

I thought we've talked about this already? Regurgitating the same thing again?

So... if something were created spontaneously, it would obviously be a complete contradiction of not just a fundamental law of physics, but also of the Bible itself?

That's interesting. I have just read an account of a woman being transformed into salt. Salt is twice as dense as a human body. So, assuming the woman weighed 50kg before being transformed, that leaves us with a 100kg salt statue... meaning the inexplicable creation of 50kg of matter. Does that falsify the Biblical statement of finished creation?

Betsy:

Was the woman turned completely into salt...or just partly salt....or just encased in salt?

Anyway, have you lived near the ocean? There's salt in the air....at least near sea water. The way I understand that law, it's like matter and energy can be "recycled," if that's the right term. Well I dunno. I don't have the answer on that....maybe I'll stumble on it one of these days.

Do you know that Sodom and Gomorrha were located near the vicinity of the Dead Sea? Of course you know what's in sea water, don't you?

The Wit of Dr. Craig - Part 22 "The Repetitive Atheist"

Edited August 27, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

No no no no betsy. You insist that the Genesis creation text be taken literally, you gotta take it literally.

The text is quite clear: seven days. Seven 24-hours days. Anything else is interpretation, something incompatible with a literal reading.

Or are we in a presence of yet another betsy fact?

CORRECTION. I never said that Genesis Creation should be taken literally! In fact, I made it quite clear somewhere that I don't believe in a young earth! And I have explained clearly about God's Time or God's Days - and I've given some Bible verses to support that.

I hope you're not trying to put words in my mouth....nor are you doing this with malice.

Edited August 27, 2011 by betsy

[g_bambino]

I never said that Genesis Creation should be taken literally!

Then why did you ever take it upon yourself to try and show how science has proven literal quotes from the Bible to be true?

[kimmy]

What do you think is a "local" flood? Flooding of a small town?

Could it be a flooded region too?

It doesn't matter: there's no "region" that could contain enough water to create a flood deep enough to float a boat to the top of the mountains of Ararat.

To illustrate the point: imagine placing a rubber ducky (representing the Ark) and a bar stool (representing Mount Ararat) in your bath-tub (representing any hypothetical region that might have been flooded around Mount Ararat). Like the bar-stool in the bath tub, the mountains of Ararat are by far the tallest thing around. Can you float your rubber ducky to onto the bar stool? When you turn on the tap (representing 40 days and 40 nights of rain...) the flooding begins. But... water starts flowing over the top of the tub before the water is deep enough to float the ducky onto the stool. Can you float the ducky onto the stool? Only by flooding your whole bathroom.

There is no possible region around the mountains of Ararat that could have been flooded deep enough to put the Ark where the Bible says without the water flowing into the Black Sea and then Mediterranean Sea and then all of the oceans.

So that leaves only two possibilities:

EITHER: the Bible is lying about where the Ark came to rest.

OR: the entire world was flooded to a depth of several thousand meters above the current sea level. But there is only enough water in the entire world-- even if you melted all the glaciers and drained all the moisture from the air-- to raise the sea level by 60 to 75 meters.

For Noah's flood to have happened, God must have created an enormous volume of water, then destroyed it later. But that contradicts one of your "facts", the "finished creation".

Speaking of Adam's ribs, do you know that ribs regenerate?

You missed the point: Eve weighed at least 100lbs. A rib weighs less than 1lb. If Eve was constructed from a rib, we've again created at least 100lbs of matter.

Anyway, why are you looking for things that are not listed? If it's not listed, obviously there's nothing imperical to show you (yet)....and of course, you wouldn't take my words based on faith alone.

Instead, why not deal with the 53 listed ones? Those are supported.

I'm more interested in looking at the contradictions between your "facts" and other "facts" reported by the Bible. An explanation of where all the water from Noah's Great Flood went would be fascinating to hear.

-k

[Remiel]

You know, I am neither an atheist (not even agnostic), nor am I unable to cope with religious folks trying to convince me of their beliefs. But I do not understand how some of you have the fortitude to continue debating betsy's ridiculous arguments for so many pages...

[dre]

You know, I am neither an atheist (not even agnostic), nor am I unable to cope with religious folks trying to convince me of their beliefs. But I do not understand how some of you have the fortitude to continue debating betsy's ridiculous arguments for so many pages...

Yeah its a trip. Not only is it retarded, but its also a blatant troll. Its definately strange that we talk to it.

[CANADIEN]

You know, I am neither an atheist (not even agnostic), nor am I unable to cope with religious folks trying to convince me of their beliefs. But I do not understand how some of you have the fortitude to continue debating betsy's ridiculous arguments for so many pages...

In my case, it's not fortitude. I do it for the comedic relief.

[betsy]

Then why did you ever take it upon yourself to try and show how science has proven literal quotes from the Bible to be true?

Why not?

Science does support some of the verses in the Bible! Some literally! Including Genesis. That's a fact!

Why shouldn't it be pointed out????

Edited August 27, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

It doesn't matter: there's no "region" that could contain enough water to create a flood deep enough to float a boat to the top of the mountains of Ararat.

To illustrate the point: imagine placing a rubber ducky (representing the Ark) and a bar stool (representing Mount Ararat) in your bath-tub (representing any hypothetical region that might have been flooded around Mount Ararat). Like the bar-stool in the bath tub, the mountains of Ararat are by far the tallest thing around. Can you float your rubber ducky to onto the bar stool? When you turn on the tap (representing 40 days and 40 nights of rain...) the flooding begins. But... water starts flowing over the top of the tub before the water is deep enough to float the ducky onto the stool. Can you float the ducky onto the stool? Only by flooding your whole bathroom.

There is no possible region around the mountains of Ararat that could have been flooded deep enough to put the Ark where the Bible says without the water flowing into the Black Sea and then Mediterranean Sea and then all of the oceans.

So that leaves only two possibilities:

EITHER: the Bible is lying about where the Ark came to rest.

OR: the entire world was flooded to a depth of several thousand meters above the current sea level. But there is only enough water in the entire world-- even if you melted all the glaciers and drained all the moisture from the air-- to raise the sea level by 60 to 75 meters.

Btw, Why are we arguing about the flood at all? Is it listed as a fact???

Whether my supposition is right or wrong, it doesn't make any difference at this point. It is supposition.

I have not listed it as a fact, because there is still some contention going on.

If you hadn't noticed, all facts listed here have been accepted and proven true by science.

Before you start refuting that statement, please read the listed facts carefully.

I've already stated that in my view, Genesis is not a blow-by-blow account of how things came to be. It is some sort of a summary, and other verses by other authors in the Bible have given additional accounts about origin/universe that indicate that.

And I've stated that, at present, I tend to believe that the flood is localized - not global - but that my view could possibly change depending on further discoveries by science.

For Noah's flood to have happened, God must have created an enormous volume of water, then destroyed it later. But that contradicts one of your "facts", the "finished creation".

Why? Do you know what happened to other parts of the world during that time of raining?

Is water only found in that region?

Do you know climate condition in that region before that flood happened? Do you know if they'd had drought before?

You missed the point: Eve weighed at least 100lbs. A rib weighs less than 1lb. If Eve was constructed from a rib, we've again created at least 100lbs of matter.

No, it is you who's missing the whole point.

Answer this simple question.

When was Eve created? Before or after Creation was finished?

I'm more interested in looking at the contradictions between your "facts" and other "facts" reported by the Bible. An explanation of where all the water from Noah's Great Flood went would be fascinating to hear. -k

Like where all the water go after a massive flood.

Edited August 27, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

CORRECTION. I never said that Genesis Creation should be taken literally!

Yet, the unavoidable conclusion about everyone draws from your postings is that you want us to believe creation unfolded the way dscribed in Genesis. Especially when it comes to the part about life having been created each according to its kind. No matter how one puts it, and no matter whether you are able to recognize it or not, that's a literal approach.

In fact, I made it quite clear somewhere that I don't believe in a young earth! And I have explained clearly about God's Time or God's Days - and I've given some Bible verses to support that.

In case you didn't realize it, it is EXACTLY because of this that I am calling you to task. If one is to take the text literally (which is what you are doing and ask us to do, whether or not you are capable of realizing it), one doesn't get to pick and choose was is to be taken as it was written and what is subject to interpretation. If I have to believe that each of animal species and the Human being were created separtely because it's written in the Bible, then I have to believe that it was created in seven days because it is also written.

No place for interpretations. The text comes as a whole package, to be taken either as what it is, an allegory, or as being a factual description of what happens. And that means that the claim that the text is talking about "God's days" doesn't wash out it either cases. The texts you quote and "explain" do NOT say that what is a day for God lasts one thousand of our years. They say that for God one day is like a thousand year - a difference, and not just one in semantics. The meaning to a person of faith is pretty evident - time is of no object to God. If God has wanted us to know that his days are longer than our days, He would have said it so clearly, not that way.

Besides, isn't the Sabbath command clear, about resting on the 7th day because God rested on the 7th day? (like God needs a rest anyways). It doesn't say that we should rest on the 7th of our days because God rested on the 7th of His days.

What you posts looks like Old Earth Creationism to me. And to me, Old Earth creationism sounds like an attempt by its proponents to have their cake and eat it to, namely to insist that Genesis should be taken at face value, but subject to interpretation when scientific knowledge doesn't fit.

[CANADIEN]

CORRECTION. I never said that Genesis Creation should be taken literally!

Why not?

Science does support some of the verses in the Bible! Some literally! Including Genesis. That's a fact!

Why shouldn't it be pointed out????

Let me see here. You are not claiming that the Genesis creation story should be taken literally, but you claim that science supports some of Genesis verses literally. Does that include the creation verses?

If so, desn't that mean we should take the creation verses literally? If not, why should we reject macro-evolution on the basis that it contradicts the text of the verses.

See, not trying to put any word in your mouth here. I don't need to. You have digged yourself in a hole here, and you didn't need any help doing it.

[betsy]

Yet, the unavoidable conclusion about everyone draws from your postings is that you want us to believe creation unfolded the way dscribed in Genesis. Especially when it comes to the part about life having been created each according to its kind. No matter how one puts it, and no matter whether you are able to recognize it or not, that's a literal approach.

Like I said, there are some that are quite literal.

In case you didn't realize it, it is EXACTLY because of this that I am calling you to task. If one is to take the text literally (which is what you are doing and ask us to do, whether or not you are capable of realizing it), one doesn't get to pick and choose was is to be taken as it was written and what is subject to interpretation. If I have to believe that each of animal species and the Human being were created separtely because it's written in the Bible, then I have to believe that it was created in seven days because it is also written.

You don't have any right to call me to task when you yourself wouldn't say where you firmly stand.

You claim to be a Christian yet you wouldn't firmly affirm whether you believe in actual Creation or Intelligent Design - which by the way, does not exclude your belief of evolution.

You want the luxury of "picking and choosing" what you want or how you want to debate. That's not a discussion at all. How can one rationally discuss with you who can shift anyway you want?

No place for interpretations.

So how do you interpret yourself as a Christian when you try to discredit not only the Old Testament but the New Testament as well?

When you are so determined to be obtuse about the reasons why this topic is created?

When I've already stated that, the Bible is not trying to prove science....but that science supports the Bible.

If you are a Christian, it flies smack against logic why you'd find offense that science does support the Bible! One would think you should be jubilant, if not at least be pleased about it.

The text comes as a whole package, to be taken either as what it is, an allegory, or as being a factual description of what happens. And that means that the claim that the text is talking about "God's days" doesn't wash out it either cases. The texts you quote and "explain" do NOT say that what is a day for God lasts one thousand of our years. They say that for God one day is like a thousand year - a difference, and not just one in semantics. The meaning to a person of faith is pretty evident - time is of no object to God. If God has wanted us to know that his days are longer than our days, He would have said it so clearly, not that way.

Blah-blah-blah....coming from someone who invoked the Apostle's Creed, without understanding the part ".....CREATOR of heaven and earth."

Besides, isn't the Sabbath command clear, about resting on the 7th day because God rested on the 7th day? (like God needs a rest anyways).

It doesn't say that we should rest on the 7th of our days because God rested on the 7th of His days.

In my view, one can have his/her own Sabbath Day. It is the message in that God wants us to devote a day for Him! It is for our own good as well, so people are not forced into labor without a day of rest. It is a day for us to enjoy as well....to devote with our family!

You say...."Like God needs a rest anyways." You're saying the Bible is lying.

You're mocking the Bible. I guess you think it's all fiction....

This, coming from an "christian."

What you posts looks like Old Earth Creationism to me. And to me, Old Earth creationism sounds like an attempt by its proponents to have their cake and eat it to, namely to insist that Genesis should be taken at face value, but subject to interpretation when scientific knowledge doesn't fit.

I don't care what you think! What you project with your attempt at reason is your utter confusion - so much so that you contradict your own self!

Your own posts are the empirical evidences of that!

At least I made myself clear where I firmly stand. I'm consistent about it too.

What about you? Still wouldn't say where you firmly stand?

Creation or Intelligent Design? Or....No Creator? No God?

Edited August 27, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Let me see here. You are not claiming that the Genesis creation story should be taken literally, but you claim that science supports some of Genesis verses literally. Does that include the creation verses?

If so, desn't that mean we should take the creation verses literally? If not, why should we reject macro-evolution on the basis that it contradicts the text of the verses.

What do you think? Why don't you scroll back to the listed facts connected with Genesis.

Read them carefully.

See, not trying to put any word in your mouth here. I don't need to. You have digged yourself in a hole here, and you didn't need any help doing it.

That's what those who don't understand what they read thinks.

And those who are utterly confused thinks they think.

Edited August 27, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

You don't have any right to call me to task when you yourself wouldn't say where you firmly stand.

You claim to be a Christian yet you wouldn't firmly affirm whether you believe in actual Creation or Intelligent Design - which by the way, does not exclude your belief of evolution.

I have said firmly and crearly where I stand. Your claim that I did otherwise is a lie. Don't worry, by now it odesn't offend me as much as it amuses me.

Interesting, btw, that you claim that creation excludes macro-evolution, then when I say that these two FACTS are not mutually exclusive you try to weasel out by saying that, oh well, Creation doesn't exclude my beloief in evolution.

And yes, I will call you to task when you keep changing your own rules about what should be taken literally and what shouldn't.

You want the luxury of "picking and choosing" what you want or how you want to debate. That's not a discussion at all. How can one rationally discuss with you who can shift anyway you want?

sounds to me like an apt discussion of what you do. I said what I believe in. And I have also said that the FACT that I am a christian is not open to debate, or discussion, with anyone but God. Period. You are the one who keep trying to dictate what I should discuss with you.

You say...."Like God needs a rest anyways." You're saying the Bible is lying.

You're mocking the Bible. I guess you think it's all fiction....

This, coming from an "christian."

Now, you are putting words in my mouth, and revealing your lack of understanding of what I say, and what I mean (note: I didn't say lack of agreement, but lack of understanding). I have said time and time again that I consider the creation text of Genesis to be an allegory about God's creation. An allegory is not a lie. Don't worry, I do not expect you to understand this.

Edited August 27, 2011 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

Science does support some of the verses in the Bible! Some literally! Including Genesis.

You said you don't take the Bible literally.

[CANADIEN]

What do you think? Why don't you scroll back to the listed facts connected with Genesis.

Read them carefully.

Careful for what you wish. Because the more one scrolls back to what you post, the more evident your lack of understanding of the Bible, faith, and science becomes.

As for what I think about the FACTS of God's creation and macro-evolution being compatible. Yes, indeed, they are compatible. Never said otherwise.

Edited August 27, 2011 by CANADIEN

[betsy]

You said you don't take the Bible literally.

Nice try, again.

Are you resorting to cheap tactics now? Is this the next strategy?

[betsy]

As for what I think about the FACTS of God's creation and macro-evolution being compatible. Yes, indeed, they are compatible. Never said otherwise.

So, you believe in Intelligent Design! Good!

I, too believe that God Planned, Designed and Created everything! The only way we differ is that I don't believe in macro-evolution - basing that belief on the verse in Genesis (literally this time), and the fact that science has shown the fallacy of macro-evolution!

Science supports the Bible on this one!

[g_bambino]

Nice try

I never said that Genesis Creation should be taken literally!