3 ms·

I think it requires stretching the definition of "literally". For example, "seven days" might not necessarily mean "seven human days" but rather it might be som

by smhost 10y ago

I think it requires stretching the definition of "literally". For example, "seven days" might not necessarily mean "seven human days" but rather it might be some kind of magical God-time unit. An "ark" may not be a literal ship; or maybe it is, and the "popular" version of the evolutionary tree is misguided. And so on.

cousin_it 10y ago
The most fun crackpot text I've ever read, Ilya Shkrob's "In the Beginning" [1], says that the seven days account describes seven different highly improbable events in Earth's history that were mainly responsible for the existence of intelligent life, and each of those events indeed could fit in a day. [1] https://sites.google.com/site/shkrobius/inthebeginning... https://sites.google.com/site/shkrobius/inthebeginning....
tyingq 10y ago
> For example, "seven days" might not necessarily mean "seven human days" I really didn't want to get into a point-for-point thing, but the "day" is just one issue. Birds and whales (great sea monsters) precede reptiles and insects, grass precedes light, etc. The Ark, and other stories, have similar issues that are hard to wave away.
- combatentropy 10y ago
  > Birds and whales (great sea monsters) precede reptiles and insects What's the problem? > grass precedes light verse 3: And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. verse 11: Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation . . . "
  - tyingq 10y ago
    >What's the problem Really? > verse 3: And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. What are verses 14-17 about, then? Edit: For clarity... a) Birds preceding reptiles and insects seems obviously flawed. b) Verse 3 "Let there be light" would almost have to correlate with the big bang...light somewhere, but not on the earth. Verses 14-17 seem clearly to be about the sun being created. Created millions of years after the grass (and other things that need light?), if we take the notion that "days" aren't literal, and are meant to match what we've seen in science. This has the verses laid out in a way that's easy to follow: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/ http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/
    - yberreby 10y ago
      I agree with you regarding "Let there be light" referring to the Big Bang. However, it's not unreasonable to assume that there might have been another source of light for these plants to grow. Alternatively, even if there wasn't, do you not think that a God who could create the Sun and the Earth from nothing would be unable to make plants grow without the Sun? It seems that many so-called 'rebuttals' of the Bible try to disprove it by explaining why some events are physically impossible, but what is impossible to an all-powerful God who created the laws of physics themselves? Is he not able to bend them to His will? If one tries to nitpick on every little detail in the Scriptures, they will have a lot of occasions to do so. It is quite easy to find apparent contradictions by interpreting the Bible in a way that is suited to your goal. It is not, however, a proof that the Bible contradicts itself, as it relies on a specific interpretation. When it come to religious matters, very few things can be proven or disproven. The way I see it, Christian faith is about being humble. You can't find God if you read the Bible with a self-righteous, know-it-all attitude, trying to disprove it line by line. I found this[1] page to explain this point of view quite well. You cannot apply the principles of science to metaphysical matters, because science concerns itself purely with the physical, tangible world, and has no answers to offer regarding its origins, its meaning, etc. Science and faith do not contradict each other; rather, they complement each other. I like to think of myself as a highly rational individual; mathematics and programming, for example, delight me. Yet I have no issue believing that the Bible is true, and that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the creator of the Universe. Does that make me a fool? In the eyes of some, yes. Is it possible to be cognitively biased in a specific area yet highly rational in others? Absolutely. But to say that reason precludes faith is simply incorrect. [1]: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-comfort/contradictions-bible.html http://www.christiananswers.net/q-comfort/contradictions-bib...
      - smhost 10y ago
        > what is impossible to an all-powerful God who created the laws of physics themselves? How about logical impossibilities and contradictions? Can God create copies of himself, or split himself into multiple aspects, such as into the Greek gods? If not, then God must be limited to logical possibilities. If yes, then any and all explanations are equally valid, so God is literally meaningless. > science concerns itself purely with the physical, tangible world That's not even remotely true. Physics constantly plays with metaphysical models, and it keeps the ones with explanatory power that can be mapped to observable phenomena. > I like to think of myself as a highly rational individual There's an alternative explanation here somewhere, but my highly irrational mind is having a hard time seeing the truth.

by smhost 10y ago

cousin_it 10y ago

The most fun crackpot text I've ever read, Ilya Shkrob's "In the Beginning" [1], says that the seven days account describes seven different highly improbable events in Earth's history that were mainly responsible for the existence of intelligent life, and each of those events indeed could fit in a day. [1] https://sites.google.com/site/shkrobius/inthebeginning... https://sites.google.com/site/shkrobius/inthebeginning....

tyingq 10y ago

> For example, "seven days" might not necessarily mean "seven human days" I really didn't want to get into a point-for-point thing, but the "day" is just one issue. Birds and whales (great sea monsters) precede reptiles and insects, grass precedes light, etc. The Ark, and other stories, have similar issues that are hard to wave away.

combatentropy 10y ago
> Birds and whales (great sea monsters) precede reptiles and insects What's the problem? > grass precedes light verse 3: And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. verse 11: Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation . . . "
- tyingq 10y ago
  >What's the problem Really? > verse 3: And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. What are verses 14-17 about, then? Edit: For clarity... a) Birds preceding reptiles and insects seems obviously flawed. b) Verse 3 "Let there be light" would almost have to correlate with the big bang...light somewhere, but not on the earth. Verses 14-17 seem clearly to be about the sun being created. Created millions of years after the grass (and other things that need light?), if we take the notion that "days" aren't literal, and are meant to match what we've seen in science. This has the verses laid out in a way that's easy to follow: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/ http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/
  - yberreby 10y ago
    I agree with you regarding "Let there be light" referring to the Big Bang. However, it's not unreasonable to assume that there might have been another source of light for these plants to grow. Alternatively, even if there wasn't, do you not think that a God who could create the Sun and the Earth from nothing would be unable to make plants grow without the Sun? It seems that many so-called 'rebuttals' of the Bible try to disprove it by explaining why some events are physically impossible, but what is impossible to an all-powerful God who created the laws of physics themselves? Is he not able to bend them to His will? If one tries to nitpick on every little detail in the Scriptures, they will have a lot of occasions to do so. It is quite easy to find apparent contradictions by interpreting the Bible in a way that is suited to your goal. It is not, however, a proof that the Bible contradicts itself, as it relies on a specific interpretation. When it come to religious matters, very few things can be proven or disproven. The way I see it, Christian faith is about being humble. You can't find God if you read the Bible with a self-righteous, know-it-all attitude, trying to disprove it line by line. I found this[1] page to explain this point of view quite well. You cannot apply the principles of science to metaphysical matters, because science concerns itself purely with the physical, tangible world, and has no answers to offer regarding its origins, its meaning, etc. Science and faith do not contradict each other; rather, they complement each other. I like to think of myself as a highly rational individual; mathematics and programming, for example, delight me. Yet I have no issue believing that the Bible is true, and that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the creator of the Universe. Does that make me a fool? In the eyes of some, yes. Is it possible to be cognitively biased in a specific area yet highly rational in others? Absolutely. But to say that reason precludes faith is simply incorrect. [1]: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-comfort/contradictions-bible.html http://www.christiananswers.net/q-comfort/contradictions-bib...
    - smhost 10y ago
      > what is impossible to an all-powerful God who created the laws of physics themselves? How about logical impossibilities and contradictions? Can God create copies of himself, or split himself into multiple aspects, such as into the Greek gods? If not, then God must be limited to logical possibilities. If yes, then any and all explanations are equally valid, so God is literally meaningless. > science concerns itself purely with the physical, tangible world That's not even remotely true. Physics constantly plays with metaphysical models, and it keeps the ones with explanatory power that can be mapped to observable phenomena. > I like to think of myself as a highly rational individual There's an alternative explanation here somewhere, but my highly irrational mind is having a hard time seeing the truth.