Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Problems With Genesis

Nicholas_Hubel
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 11:48:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
First of all I'd like to say this is my first time posting here so hello! I have been thinking about this lately and have not really heard it mentioned in any of the Hitchens or Dawkins debates, and would like to see what creationists have to say about this as well as other atheists. Creationists seem to argue that Genesis is scientifically accurate in regards to the origin of the universe, Earth, and life. When I read Genesis, however, I find that it is very inconsistent with science. All you have to do is read it:

Day 1: The Earth is nothing but a vast ocean of water, despite there being no sunlight to heat all of that water to a liquid state. It doesn't say where the earth came from. God creates light and calls it day, and he calls darkness night. There is even an evening and a morning. Despite there being a day and night cycle, however, there will be NO sun for another THREE days? Creationists argue that the "light" was actually referring to the big bang. However, the big bang should have come BEFORE the earth, so that there would be matter to gravitate and form our lovely planet. This says light came afterwards.

Day 2: God creates the sky, and the Bible refers to it as a "firmament" or a "vault" which is thought to reflect the ancient belief that the sky was basically a huge dome with the sun, moon, and stars sort of imprinted on it. No doubt this made sense at the time since this was well before we discovered the earth is round. But if this is the word of God, then how could God be wrong? Could the Bible mean something else when it uses these words?

Day 3: This one especially confuses me. He creates the continents, which is fine. But then he makes trees and plants. If there is no sun, how can there be vegetation? How will they all spread their seeds without there being any bugs to carry them? Trees are tall because they're constantly fighting over sunlight. Shorter trees don't get sunlight and die. Well how are they so tall if there isn't a sun to fight over? How could they have survived the eventual, primordial planetary collision that would form the moon?

Day 4: This refers back to the "vault/firmament" again, on which God places, on the same day, all the stars, the moon, and the sun. Their purpose to rule over the day and night and to signify sacred times for us, and to tell us what season it is. Special note: God placed the stars IN the vault; not over, not under, IN the vault. Meaning, they are a part of the sky itself. Another interesting point: it describes the moon as a separate light from the sun. Perhaps because the author didn't realize that was actually the sun's light reflecting off the moon?

Day 5: As with all the other days, this one confuses me. He then creates fish and birds, but we are still without land creatures for another day. If you know anything about evolution, you know this is simply impossible. I have met creationists who argue that evolution was God's means of creating life, but then this makes me wonder if they have actually read the creation story.

Day 6: He finally creates land creatures, and humans. Not much to say here, however I would like to point out that eventually God would have Adam name all of these creatures. The Creation Museum argues that dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible because the word "dinosaur" would not be invented until 1841. So why did Adam not think those tree-sized (or sheep-sized, as they say, despite the size of their fossils) lizards deserved a name?

Day 7: Our perfect, all-powerful God needs to rest so he makes this day special. We don't have to work on this day, and if we do we shall surely be put to death.

Thanks for reading this, or even just glancing at it. I felt a need to let this out. You don't have to respond, but if you do then thanks. I would love to see some feedback on these thoughts and questions, whether good or bad. Does anyone have any more points to add?
Nicholas_Hubel
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 12:01:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh I suppose I should correct myself. It does say he created the Earth in the beginning (obviously). Sorry I am super sleep deprived right now D: lol
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 4:37:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 4:29:14 PM, desmac wrote:
The main problem with Genesis was Phil Collins.

Peter Gabriel rocked! Listen to old Genesis.
retiree
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 5:15:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 11:48:08 AM, Nicholas_Hubel wrote:
First of all I'd like to say this is my first time posting here so hello! I have been thinking about this lately and have not really heard it mentioned in any of the Hitchens or Dawkins debates, and would like to see what creationists have to say about this as well as other atheists. Creationists seem to argue that Genesis is scientifically accurate in regards to the origin of the universe, Earth, and life. When I read Genesis, however, I find that it is very inconsistent with science. All you have to do is read it:

Day 1: The Earth is nothing but a vast ocean of water, despite there being no sunlight to heat all of that water to a liquid state. It doesn't say where the earth came from. God creates light and calls it day, and he calls darkness night. There is even an evening and a morning. Despite there being a day and night cycle, however, there will be NO sun for another THREE days? Creationists argue that the "light" was actually referring to the big bang. However, the big bang should have come BEFORE the earth, so that there would be matter to gravitate and form our lovely planet. This says light came afterwards.

Day 2: God creates the sky, and the Bible refers to it as a "firmament" or a "vault" which is thought to reflect the ancient belief that the sky was basically a huge dome with the sun, moon, and stars sort of imprinted on it. No doubt this made sense at the time since this was well before we discovered the earth is round. But if this is the word of God, then how could God be wrong? Could the Bible mean something else when it uses these words?

Day 3: This one especially confuses me. He creates the continents, which is fine. But then he makes trees and plants. If there is no sun, how can there be vegetation? How will they all spread their seeds without there being any bugs to carry them? Trees are tall because they're constantly fighting over sunlight. Shorter trees don't get sunlight and die. Well how are they so tall if there isn't a sun to fight over? How could they have survived the eventual, primordial planetary collision that would form the moon?

Day 4: This refers back to the "vault/firmament" again, on which God places, on the same day, all the stars, the moon, and the sun. Their purpose to rule over the day and night and to signify sacred times for us, and to tell us what season it is. Special note: God placed the stars IN the vault; not over, not under, IN the vault. Meaning, they are a part of the sky itself. Another interesting point: it describes the moon as a separate light from the sun. Perhaps because the author didn't realize that was actually the sun's light reflecting off the moon?

Day 5: As with all the other days, this one confuses me. He then creates fish and birds, but we are still without land creatures for another day. If you know anything about evolution, you know this is simply impossible. I have met creationists who argue that evolution was God's means of creating life, but then this makes me wonder if they have actually read the creation story.

Day 6: He finally creates land creatures, and humans. Not much to say here, however I would like to point out that eventually God would have Adam name all of these creatures. The Creation Museum argues that dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible because the word "dinosaur" would not be invented until 1841. So why did Adam not think those tree-sized (or sheep-sized, as they say, despite the size of their fossils) lizards deserved a name?

Day 7: Our perfect, all-powerful God needs to rest so he makes this day special. We don't have to work on this day, and if we do we shall surely be put to death.

Thanks for reading this, or even just glancing at it. I felt a need to let this out. You don't have to respond, but if you do then thanks. I would love to see some feedback on these thoughts and questions, whether good or bad. Does anyone have any more points to add? : :

How are you supposed to know how God created the heavens and earth if you don't listen to his voice? Words in a book are easily changed by heathens who don't know God.
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 8:24:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 11:48:08 AM, Nicholas_Hubel wrote:
I find that it is very inconsistent with science.

Hmmm" Luckily it is the science that is wrong, not the Bible. :)

I don"t see any good reason to assume that the pseudoscientific and metaphysical claims that "scientists" have should automatically been taken as truth. I think it is only reasonable to take scientific facts that can be tested, no need for scientific fantasies which are usually not even reasonable.

Day 1: The Earth is nothing but a vast ocean of water, despite there being no sunlight to heat all of that water to a liquid state.

Bible doesn"t ell was water in solid form, that is possible.

Day 2: God creates the sky, and the Bible refers to it as a "firmament" or a "vault" which is thought to reflect the ancient belief that the sky was basically a huge dome with the sun, moon, and stars sort of imprinted on it.

Imagine that you are in room that has vaulted ceiling. Do you think that the ceiling is just the surface without any thickness? I believe you are reasonable person and understand that vault is not 2D object and it has thickness. Same way it can be assumed that firmament has thickness. Bible could mean with firmament the whole space, or the whole atmosphere.

If firmament means atmosphere, it is like dome that covers whole planet. Because planet is probably sphere, the dome is also sphere and surrounds the whole planet. Dome can be more than half sphere. And sphere could be formed by two half sphere domes.

And stars can be imprinted in it similarly as image is imprinted to screen, when the picture is projected on to it.

I don"t see any problem in here, unless person makes wrong and stupid assumptions.

Day 3: This one especially confuses me. He creates the continents, which is fine. But then he makes trees and plants. If there is no sun, how can there be vegetation?

Actually He makes one continent. And it is possible that He created just seeds, because Bible says also this:
"No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth. There was not a man to till the ground,"
Gen. 2:5

http://www.kolumbus.fi...

How could they have survived the eventual, primordial planetary collision that would form the moon?

And you really believe that happened? Why?

...Another interesting point: it describes the moon as a separate light from the sun. Perhaps because the author didn't realize that was actually the sun's light reflecting off the moon?

Moon is separate to sun; it doesn"t mean that the light would not be from the sun.

Day 5: As with all the other days, this one confuses me. He then creates fish and birds, but we are still without land creatures for another day. If you know anything about evolution, you know this is simply impossible.

Maybe, but we don"t have any good reason to believe that evolution theory is entirely true and species developed as it tells. Your problem becomes only if make assumptions that don"t fit to the Bible. No good reason to do so.

Day 6: He finally creates land creatures, and humans. Not much to say here, however I would like to point out that eventually God would have Adam name all of these creatures. The Creation Museum argues that dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible because the word "dinosaur" would not be invented until 1841. So why did Adam not think those tree-sized (or sheep-sized, as they say, despite the size of their fossils) lizards deserved a name?

We don"t have any reason to assume that they didn"t have name, we just don"t know that name. Maybe it word for dinosaur was for example behemoth Job 40:15-24.

Day 7: Our perfect, all-powerful God needs to rest so he makes this day special. We don't have to work on this day, and if we do we shall surely be put to death.

What do you think, when you put a hammer to rest? That it sleeps, or that it doesn"t work? When God rest, it means He didn"t create, it doesn"t mean that He went to sleep, because Bible doesn"t say that God went to sleep.
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 11:33:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 11:48:08 AM, Nicholas_Hubel wrote:
First of all I'd like to say this is my first time posting here so hello! I have been thinking about this lately and have not really heard it mentioned in any of the Hitchens or Dawkins debates, and would like to see what creationists have to say about this as well as other atheists. Creationists seem to argue that Genesis is scientifically accurate in regards to the origin of the universe, Earth, and life. When I read Genesis, however, I find that it is very inconsistent with science. All you have to do is read it:

Day 1: The Earth is nothing but a vast ocean of water, despite there being no sunlight to heat all of that water to a liquid state. It doesn't say where the earth came from. God creates light and calls it day, and he calls darkness night. There is even an evening and a morning. Despite there being a day and night cycle, however, there will be NO sun for another THREE days? Creationists argue that the "light" was actually referring to the big bang. However, the big bang should have come BEFORE the earth, so that there would be matter to gravitate and form our lovely planet. This says light came afterwards.

Day 2: God creates the sky, and the Bible refers to it as a "firmament" or a "vault" which is thought to reflect the ancient belief that the sky was basically a huge dome with the sun, moon, and stars sort of imprinted on it. No doubt this made sense at the time since this was well before we discovered the earth is round. But if this is the word of God, then how could God be wrong? Could the Bible mean something else when it uses these words?

Day 3: This one especially confuses me. He creates the continents, which is fine. But then he makes trees and plants. If there is no sun, how can there be vegetation? How will they all spread their seeds without there being any bugs to carry them? Trees are tall because they're constantly fighting over sunlight. Shorter trees don't get sunlight and die. Well how are they so tall if there isn't a sun to fight over? How could they have survived the eventual, primordial planetary collision that would form the moon?

Day 4: This refers back to the "vault/firmament" again, on which God places, on the same day, all the stars, the moon, and the sun. Their purpose to rule over the day and night and to signify sacred times for us, and to tell us what season it is. Special note: God placed the stars IN the vault; not over, not under, IN the vault. Meaning, they are a part of the sky itself. Another interesting point: it describes the moon as a separate light from the sun. Perhaps because the author didn't realize that was actually the sun's light reflecting off the moon?

Day 5: As with all the other days, this one confuses me. He then creates fish and birds, but we are still without land creatures for another day. If you know anything about evolution, you know this is simply impossible. I have met creationists who argue that evolution was God's means of creating life, but then this makes me wonder if they have actually read the creation story.

Day 6: He finally creates land creatures, and humans. Not much to say here, however I would like to point out that eventually God would have Adam name all of these creatures. The Creation Museum argues that dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible because the word "dinosaur" would not be invented until 1841. So why did Adam not think those tree-sized (or sheep-sized, as they say, despite the size of their fossils) lizards deserved a name?

Day 7: Our perfect, all-powerful God needs to rest so he makes this day special. We don't have to work on this day, and if we do we shall surely be put to death.

Thanks for reading this, or even just glancing at it. I felt a need to let this out. You don't have to respond, but if you do then thanks. I would love to see some feedback on these thoughts and questions, whether good or bad. Does anyone have any more points to add?

Well, first I have a piece of advice for you. When sourcing, reading, or referring to the Bible, always, ALWAYS, use the King James Version. It is the most direct, without any additional opinion, addition, or "dumbed down" sections. That said, try going through the King Jame Version and seeing if you still have the same qualms with it. The King James Version may be hard to read due to its poetic-like style, but it is currently the most accurate.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 11:50:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 4:37:43 PM, TBR wrote:
At 9/15/2015 4:29:14 PM, desmac wrote:
The main problem with Genesis was Phil Collins.

Peter Gabriel rocked! Listen to old Genesis.

My fave album, The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway. Fave tune from that is Back in NYC.

I'm the pitcher in a chain gang, we don't believe in pain.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 5:57:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 11:48:08 AM, Nicholas_Hubel wrote:
First of all I'd like to say this is my first time posting here so hello!

Hello, and welcome to the forum.

I have been thinking about this lately and have not really heard it mentioned in any of the Hitchens or Dawkins debates, and would like to see what creationists have to say about this as well as other atheists. Creationists seem to argue that Genesis is scientifically accurate in regards to the origin of the universe, Earth, and life. When I read Genesis, however, I find that it is very inconsistent with science. All you have to do is read it:

Well, first of all you have to be at least in some way, aware of what the current and ever changing science has to say on the subject, and you also have to have a pretty good idea of what the Bible is saying.

Ultimately, though, both theology and science are the imperfect works of man. In this way the subject is somewhat moot.

Day 1: The Earth is nothing but a vast ocean of water, despite there being no sunlight to heat all of that water to a liquid state. It doesn't say where the earth came from. God creates light and calls it day, and he calls darkness night. There is even an evening and a morning. Despite there being a day and night cycle, however, there will be NO sun for another THREE days?

In Hebrew, the word yohm signifies any period of time, usually within context of the narrative. So, for example, Judgment day is a period of 1,000 years. The seventh day of God's rest has been going on for thousands of years, since the closing of the creation account. Harvest day is a relatively short period of time. In the creation account the term yohm, translated day, is used in 3 distinctly different ways. 1. The period of daylight consisting of about 12 hours, much like we use it today, 2. The period of day and night, of 24 hours, much like we use it today, and 3. all 6 creative periods or days as one day, like we would use the term in application to "our grandfather's day." Not that we believe our grandfathers to be only one day old.

However, before the first day, in Genesis 1:1 it stated that God created the heavens and the Earth. The Hebrew word bara, (created) is in the perfect sense, meaning that at that point in the narrative the heavens and Earth were complete. The heavens would include the luminaries. Sun, moon and stars.

The morning and evening would only constitute half of the Hebrew period of a day, a literal 24 hours. It isn't meant to be taken literally. The only observers at that time were not on Earth, but in heaven. The spirit creatures that joyfully cried out, later at the completion of creation of Earth. The evening signified a period of time when what was being accomplished was obscured, and the morning signified a period of time when something was accomplished and revealed to them.

Creationists argue that the "light" was actually referring to the big bang.

You must be joking! Do they really? I've heard some strange teachings from the Creationist camps, but that is a new one to me. They are just trying to figure it out, I suppose, like the rest of us.

However, the big bang should have come BEFORE the earth, so that there would be matter to gravitate and form our lovely planet. This says light came afterwards.

Actually, as I pointed out above, it was already there. When contemplating the meaning of Genesis as far as the sun and light goes there are primarily four Hebrew words to consider. The first, bara (created) I mentioned earlier. The second, asah (made, appointed) orh (light in a general sense) and maorh (the source of light).

If you are not careful you fail to appreciate that all of these subtle differences are being considered. Its sort of lost in translation, as it were.

So, what you have is that the heavens, (including the luminaries) and Earth are created (bara, perfect sense, signifying completion) similar to a bed is manufactured, followed some time, probably a great period of time relatively, by the periods of creation which are divided symbolically into evenings and mornings before the spirit creatures, thus establishing a model for the literal period of a weak that we now know, and those are a process of making (Hebrew bara, imperfect sense, signifying continuous action) the Earth and the luminaries in heaven as inhabitable for man and all of Earth's creatures much like a bed is continuously made.

The variation in the Hebrew words for light, namely orh (general) and maorh (source) is an interesting aspect of the account in that at first only the light (orh) is visible on Earth, and later the source (maorh) is visible. The book of Job mentions a swaddling band around the Earth early in it's creation, which most likely caused the light to gradually penetrate to the surface. A diffused light, some translations point out.

Here is an examination of Genesis chapter 1 I made some time ago to help people, especially the skeptical, to get a better understanding of the creation account, if you are interested in scriptural references and more detail.

http://www.pathwaymachine.com...

I'm going to have to conclude here, and, hopefully have time to address the remainder sometime later, as well as any comments or questions you may have regarding my response.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:04:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 11:33:34 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
Well, first I have a piece of advice for you. When sourcing, reading, or referring to the Bible, always, ALWAYS, use the King James Version. It is the most direct, without any additional opinion, addition, or "dumbed down" sections. That said, try going through the King Jame Version and seeing if you still have the same qualms with it. The King James Version may be hard to read due to its poetic-like style, but it is currently the most accurate.

You must be joking! The original KJV had quotes from Shakespeare littered throughout. In some places that should be translated as simple animals we all know are real it used words like "unicorn" or "satyr." They knew almost nothing about translation and didn't have anywhere near the manuscripts we later had.

Not to mention that there are two types of translations, the literal translation and the version, the later being granted some artistic licence as opposed to the literal.

The KJ version is only the most common Bible, and not, by far, the most accurate.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 7:42:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 4:37:43 PM, TBR wrote:
Peter Gabriel rocked! Listen to old Genesis.

As much as I like Peter Gabriel's solo material, especially compared to Phil Collin's solo material, I have to say I dislike the Genesis with Peter and like them with Phil.

But I'm not all that familiar with either.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 8:11:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 11:48:08 AM, Nicholas_Hubel wrote:
First of all I'd like to say this is my first time posting here so hello! I have been thinking about this lately and have not really heard it mentioned in any of the Hitchens or Dawkins debates, and would like to see what creationists have to say about this as well as other atheists. Creationists seem to argue that Genesis is scientifically accurate in regards to the origin of the universe, Earth, and life. When I read Genesis, however, I find that it is very inconsistent with science. All you have to do is read it:

Day 1: The Earth is nothing but a vast ocean of water, despite there being no sunlight to heat all of that water to a liquid state. It doesn't say where the earth came from. God creates light and calls it day, and he calls darkness night. There is even an evening and a morning. Despite there being a day and night cycle, however, there will be NO sun for another THREE days? Creationists argue that the "light" was actually referring to the big bang. However, the big bang should have come BEFORE the earth, so that there would be matter to gravitate and form our lovely planet. This says light came afterwards.

Day 2: God creates the sky, and the Bible refers to it as a "firmament" or a "vault" which is thought to reflect the ancient belief that the sky was basically a huge dome with the sun, moon, and stars sort of imprinted on it. No doubt this made sense at the time since this was well before we discovered the earth is round. But if this is the word of God, then how could God be wrong? Could the Bible mean something else when it uses these words?

Day 3: This one especially confuses me. He creates the continents, which is fine. But then he makes trees and plants. If there is no sun, how can there be vegetation? How will they all spread their seeds without there being any bugs to carry them? Trees are tall because they're constantly fighting over sunlight. Shorter trees don't get sunlight and die. Well how are they so tall if there isn't a sun to fight over? How could they have survived the eventual, primordial planetary collision that would form the moon?

Day 4: This refers back to the "vault/firmament" again, on which God places, on the same day, all the stars, the moon, and the sun. Their purpose to rule over the day and night and to signify sacred times for us, and to tell us what season it is. Special note: God placed the stars IN the vault; not over, not under, IN the vault. Meaning, they are a part of the sky itself. Another interesting point: it describes the moon as a separate light from the sun. Perhaps because the author didn't realize that was actually the sun's light reflecting off the moon?

Day 5: As with all the other days, this one confuses me. He then creates fish and birds, but we are still without land creatures for another day. If you know anything about evolution, you know this is simply impossible. I have met creationists who argue that evolution was God's means of creating life, but then this makes me wonder if they have actually read the creation story.

Day 6: He finally creates land creatures, and humans. Not much to say here, however I would like to point out that eventually God would have Adam name all of these creatures. The Creation Museum argues that dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible because the word "dinosaur" would not be invented until 1841. So why did Adam not think those tree-sized (or sheep-sized, as they say, despite the size of their fossils) lizards deserved a name?

Day 7: Our perfect, all-powerful God needs to rest so he makes this day special. We don't have to work on this day, and if we do we shall surely be put to death.

Thanks for reading this, or even just glancing at it. I felt a need to let this out. You don't have to respond, but if you do then thanks. I would love to see some feedback on these thoughts and questions, whether good or bad. Does anyone have any more points to add?

Genesis is a manmade myth, imo!
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 8:12:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 8:24:16 PM, 12_13 wrote:
What do you think, when you put a hammer to rest? That it sleeps, or that it doesn"t work? When God rest, it means He didn"t create, it doesn"t mean that He went to sleep, because Bible doesn"t say that God went to sleep.

So god is just a tool, I tend to think it's more likely his/her believers are.
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 9:34:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:04:25 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 9/15/2015 11:33:34 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
Well, first I have a piece of advice for you. When sourcing, reading, or referring to the Bible, always, ALWAYS, use the King James Version. It is the most direct, without any additional opinion, addition, or "dumbed down" sections. That said, try going through the King Jame Version and seeing if you still have the same qualms with it. The King James Version may be hard to read due to its poetic-like style, but it is currently the most accurate.

You must be joking! The original KJV had quotes from Shakespeare littered throughout. In some places that should be translated as simple animals we all know are real it used words like "unicorn" or "satyr." They knew almost nothing about translation and didn't have anywhere near the manuscripts we later had.

Not to mention that there are two types of translations, the literal translation and the version, the later being granted some artistic licence as opposed to the literal.

The KJ version is only the most common Bible, and not, by far, the most accurate.

First, I do not joke. Second, I did say that the Bible is written like poetry. That is simply the way it is written. Saying Shakespeare made similar writing makes no difference. The Bible came first, in case you forgot.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 9:51:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Any attempt to actually reconcile Genesis with modern knowledge and science is doomed to fail. It has been attempted and is still be attempted but it is wrong. That book was written by a semi-nomadic tribe of herders with exactly zero idea of how things worked beyond what they could see, feel, and touch with their human senses. It is rife with errors (bats are birds and insects have four legs, just to name a couple) and is merely allegory. At no point in time has it ever been even remotely correct, even though its writers and promulgators didn't realize it or did realize it and didn't care so long as people believed without question. The Christian holy book is not a good book, it's a mediocre piece of literature with some good and some bad in it, like most works. Read it with that in mind and you'll be ok.