Your fundamental mistake is seeing the Bible as a single monolithic piece of literal science

Here is what we KNOW about the Bible

1. The OT and the NT were assembled by different groups at different times, but basically several hundred years after Christ

2. The NT was selected from out of a range of material that was circulating, and there was considerable debate about which ones to include

3. The opening of the Book of Luke has its author saying how he put it together

4. The NT references OT-era books that did not make it into the OT

5. The OT books were similarly selected from a range of material, with considerable debate

6. The OT books come from an era where it was common for real authors to pretend their books were written earlier by other people - it was a standard literary device

7. The oldest OT books apparently come the the era of the Babylonian captivity - we have no evidence of Bible books much older than that.

8. There are direct contradictions withint and between the Books of the Bible - not many, not important, but enough to show that literal infallibility of not a viable option.

God has worked throughout the ages with PEOPLE. PEOPLE have written their experiences and their understanding.

You need God working in your life - not an over-reliance on some specific interpretation of some piece of mystical parchment.

The big themes of the Bible are not the issue - instead it is just the overliteral interpretation of the very oldest pieces.

Understand what a literal interpretation of Genesis actually requires... the communication of an oral history for 3500 years, from BC 4000 to BC 500, through times when the human population was almost all anti-God.

/Bevin

A worldwide flood would plausibly have resulted in sediment very widespread, hence very large amounts of sedimentary rocks. Also large numbers of dead animal and vegetable matter buried very quickly so as to form fossils without being scavenged or decaying first.

These we see in abundance on the earth.

You appear to be objecting primarily on the basis of time. That is, plate tectonics happens at such a slow rate that any movement we can see that has happened in the past must have occurred at the same miniscule rate, hence must have taken a very long time.

Why must this be so? In fact some evolutionary scientists have postulated a very rapid movement in the past to account for some features observed today.

It seems to be ok for evolutionists to postulate periods of very rapid change followed by periods of very slow change (punctuated equilibrium) but should a creationist postulate a similar period in a world under extreme fluctuating conditions, such as would most likely have been present after a catclysmic flood, and they are told they can only talk about speeds commensurate with those observed now. After all, the present is the key to the past...

Recent observable events (such as Mt St Helens) have shown that geologic events such as erosion and rock forming may occur at vastly more rapid rates than was previously thought.

We have no idea of what the earth looked like before a flood, nor do we know what the mechanisms were that caused the flood. We do not know, for instance, what constituted the flora and fauna of the antediluvean world, nor its distribution.

We may not be able to give precise mechanisms for everything we see today, but we may have faith in the Biblical account and trust that things occurred as per the given account, in the same way as we have faith that events in the future will occur as told in the same Book and that eventually our Saviour will return to destroy this present sick and degenerate world and recreate a new world in the same miraculous way as he originally created this one.

We believe this in much the same way as fervent evolutionists hold to their account despite any glaring inconsistencies, which they believ will eventually be reconciled as they have faith that their basic premises are true.

My faith is, I believe, based on a more solid foundation.

Graeme

Quote:

---

Conclusion: Get rid of the Bible and its mystical God!

Wow, thanks Bevin.

Rob

---

Come on now, lets keep it honest, Robert! That is not what Bevin said, just your insinuation

Robert,

from the times before the Babylonian captivity until today people have learnt about God though His dealings with them, through His dealings with His Church, through what other people have told them, and through studying the world around them.

There are more choices than you set up for yourself. You are only allowing

• literal interpretation of Genesis leading to a short-age creation regardless of the evidence in the earth OR
  
• atheism and evolution
  

There are other options that keep the best of both, and discard the worst.

/Bevin

Graeme, of course erosion happens and fossils exist. You have to look a lot more closely at the details. For example, how many years worth of shellfish are in the White Cliffs of Dover.

We see sedimentary rock containing fossils made of eroded metamorphic rock. We see erosion, uplift, and then more erosion.

We see the Hawaian chain.

We see the Egyptian, Chinese, and other ancient histories.

You need to actually go and read the books that describe the geological history of an area, that explain all the major features of, for instance, the area around Ayer's Rock in Australia.

Do something interesting - study, from books, the geology of the area you live in and then go and look at the rocks.

/Bevin

Bevin, you should not assume that the reason someone does not reach the same conclusions that you have is because they do not have all the facts. I have been interested in this particular topic for a long time and have read widely. I have a maths/science background and have studied geology at university level (but I am not an expert I add hastily)

I decided some time ago that I would make the Bible my primary source. I believe it was written by men inspired by God and that God has been involved in every aspect of its compilation and preservation. It is truly the word of God. So here is an underlying basic assumption where we differ.

I find that a literal reading of the Bible where it appears to be retelling historical events presents the fewest problems. If we postulate a real unique Adam and Eve, a literal fall, a literal genuine worldwide flood then we have no problems with any references to these events in later Scripture (for instance where Paul bases his whole point of "through one man came sin so through one man comes salvation")

There are things which I cannot explain. There are equally things which present problems for the evolutionary theory. My faith is based foremost on God's promises and trust in His word.

Persons starting out from such different worldviews are unlikely yo either reach agreement or to persuade the other to change their mind. So I will keep out of this thread from here on.

Graeme

How sad!