[_ Old Earth _] Is Space Expanding?

[dad]

It also is a statement of faith in the assumption that you aren't a brain in a jar being fed information in such a way that you would be able to perceive a universe around you, which includes this website, and this post. Of course, you agree with this assumption so you aren't disputing it, but since you hold science to this sort of scrutiny, I'll hold you to it. Please disprove the claim that the universe is just a playground constructed to fool you into thinking that people are talking to you, the constructor could be God if you wish.

We could draw up a big list of what is assumptions and beliefs. It doesn't matter, unless they are foisted on people as so called science as your myth has been.

You may take issue issue with this and say that God would not so deceive you, but then God wouldn't be, as it would remain as a possibility which you are open to. Just like, while the universe looks plenty old and no evidence exists for the fact that it isn't except the literal interpretation of written Hebrew mythology. God isn't trying to deceive us, to remains as a possibility that it is in fact 6000 years old, it's just that no one can come to the conclusion without reference to the Old Testament.

You may agonize over what God thinks all you want, rather than read His word. I do it the easy way.

Unless you haven't caught my drift, this entire cosmology that you have posited and continue to posit is solipsism. You cannot give any evidence that certifiable with respect to the natural world as we see it. Your claim is that the natural world as we see it is a result of another world which we cannot observe and its division from the one we inhabit and that all of our knowledge of the world is based on the false assumption that we can understand the universe by observing it. But to say such a thing is just as defensible as saying that any observation we might make is the result of our brains being tricked by specially place electrodes as our gray matter floats in some nutritive fluid.

No more than saying the state of the past or future was a certain way that you cannot hope to begin to prove, as you do!

The universe is natural now, yes. That is not the issue at all. Focus. The issue is how will it be, and how was it, and how could we know???

So go, disprove solipsism to the level I've described, and I'll give your arguments more respect that the little I do now, otherwise you're just spouting philosophical hot air.

Never heard of it. Couldn't care less. I could care about your false anti God anti bible, anti Christ claims, however, I am drawing the line, that you seem to want to pawn off your myths as science.

Let readers beware, and be aware, they are not, and you cannot support them. Really. Stop making stuff up.

 

[papajoe]

papajoe, you have not shown any evidence for the thesis that space cannot expand. All you have said is that space is granular, which I take issue with and you have reiterated the claim. But we can observe the redshift of far objects, we can observe this redshift being very very high, to the point where the objects would have to be moving away at a velocity greater than the speed of light or the space between is getting larger at a rate that is great enough to cause the light coming from them to be redshifted.

Sorry! I didn’t make myself clear. I thought I said that space cannot bend. But it can expand through the addition of Plank lengths according to the Einstein equation, solution for “tâ€Â.

"Space is granular! And cannot be elastic."

Why not? You really haven't given a good account for this statement. I think Greene's explanation there is too simple, it removes a great deal of the content. He says that space is quantized, but this is not correct. Space cannot be understood in any smaller chucks than spaces which are defined by Plank's constant, but that is related more to the uncertainty principle. But I have not seen why this denies expansion.

If space were continuos and elastic, the density would change with the expansion and the speed of light could not be constant.

"Something must be added for it to expand. Something must be removed for it to shrink. Like a pile of sand or a bar of concrete, it cannot bend.
But if the effect of gravity was space flowing into an object, an object would make a curved path, like a boat crossing a river current. Einstein’s equations would still hold!"

Something is added, at least that is what the current thinking points to, space itself is filled with the energy that started the big bang, this energy is believed to drive the expansion of space.

Energy must be expressed in order to do something; and expressed ought to be detectable.

Empty space, left on its own appears to expand at a rate proportional to distance.

Distance is also time ..... this could also mean that it expanded in the past at a greater rate.

Gravity squeezes space, or rather matter squeezes space, and gravity is the result.

Then it ought to push, rather than pull.

"The Lensing effect would still hold if gravity was space shrinking."

I meant this as an example of the power of gravity, which you seemed to believe could not be powerful enough to keep galaxy clusters or galaxies themselves together.

Sorry, I never said that. The inflow of space into matter would appear to have the same effect as gravity, that’s why I maintain that the laws of motion due to gravity would still hold.

"The affect itself must propagate at the speed of light, as you point out below, that the gravitons is a particle and a wave."

I meant by that that gravity does not self interact. The mass of the Black Hole pulls space towards it, and crushes the universe at its center. The reason light has a hard time escaping a Black Hole is because space has been pulled down into itself and has become basically curved.

It seems to me that space “curved†all the way around a black hole would have no “event horizon†at all. Space in this condition would’nt even leave a divot.
However, there would be, if the affect of gravity were due to the inflow of space.

"For there to be such things as gravitons; all the bits of matter in my body would have gravitons from little bits from every star in the universe and they would of had to be associated with those bits from the beginning.
It may not be a scientific critique, but it’s just too doggone cumbersome."

Why? Is it so cumbersome for the light from every star in the sky to be visible to you?(within the constraints on your eyes' capability) As I said before, that light is basically equivalent to touch. Gravitons are the way matter interacts with space, space is wiggling. In a manner it is an entanglement of all things to each other that began with the universe and persists.

Your point is very well taken, I hadn’t thought of it in that way.

"The way I understand it, is that space is dimensional (static) and the time-flow is dynamic. Almost comparable to matter and energy.
What if the C in the Einstein equation were converted into pure speed, distance over time d/t ? So that the d represents length or space and the t is just time. Then solve for t.
Could it actually be that matter and energy and even space itself is an expression of time???
In my hypophysis this is true; so that the time-flow then, MUST be converted into mass, energy or dimension."

This is what I have the most problem with. Matter is energy, just dense. Energy is matter, just diffuse. This static/dynamic dichotomy is both false and meaningless.

What I think the equation does is provide a value for the obvious, that energy, matter and space itself, are expressions of time.

If you take c and describe it in terms of distance and time, then you get t = d/c. That's all. In terms of what you said, no this conclusion is, frankly, nonsense. Time is not well enough understood, it passes and because of the speed of light it is the fourth dimension. It is because it takes time, even at maximum speed(= c) things that seem close are even more distant. Information itself cannot travel faster than light.

It is completely acceptable to substitute d/t for speed. Scientist and math folks do it all the time.
Isn’t it true that one hour of time is equal to some 186 + thousand miles of space?

Also, on those last thought experiments; those all require us to assume that space is curved, that the universe is a four-torus. But this is an assumption that has been discredited, as of late, by the WMAP.The evidence, now, points to the universe not being curved but in fact being quite flat, verging slightly away from inward curve in fact. This is what prompts most scientists to the belief that the universe is headed toward continued expansion, unto a Frost-like whimper.

As I pointed out before, the WMAP is not proof, because it can be explained in another way as well.
It was my hope to show in those experiments that space is straight (not curved) and light returns to the point of origin from a 180 degree angle.
That the universe has no outside edge. (Space that has dimensions, cannot be adjacent to nothing, a singularity, that has no dimensions) Space cannot be a “four-torus†or any known geometrical shape within the universe, because they all must have an outside edge!
That space is composed entirety of real centers all separated by time.
That in the early universe, when it was very small and light may have even traveled at a higher constant; beams of light traversed the universe a multitude of times.

See the Website:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp
“Figure 6. Galaxies tend to be grouped in concentric spherical shells around our home galaxy. The distance interval between shells is of the order of a million light years, but since several different intervals exist, the true picture is more complex than the idealization shown here.â€Â

His research supports my view, but I donâ€â¢t agree with his conclusions.
For one, the universe and these “shells†will look the same from any galaxy.

 

[dad]

papajoe, you have not shown any evidence for the thesis that space cannot expand. All you have said is that space is granular, which I take issue with and you have reiterated the claim. But we can observe the redshift of far objects, we can observe this redshift being very very high, to the point where the objects would have to be moving away at a velocity greater than the speed of light or the space between is getting larger at a rate that is great enough to cause the light coming from them to be redshifted.

Sorry! I didn’t make myself clear. I thought I said that space cannot bend. But it can expand through the addition of Plank lengths according to the Einstein equation, solution for “tâ€Â.[/quote]

Same past state myth speculation. Redshifted light could have actually been a result of the universe state change, or creation.

"Space is granular! And cannot be elastic."

Why not? You really haven't given a good account for this statement. I think Greene's explanation there is too simple, it removes a great deal of the content. He says that space is quantized, but this is not correct. Space cannot be understood in any smaller chucks than spaces which are defined by Plank's constant, but that is related more to the uncertainty principle. But I have not seen why this denies expansion.[/quote]

Your attempts to understand space are all present state, and law based, and you can't show that applies to the future or past.

If space were continuos and elastic, the density would change with the expansion and the speed of light could not be constant.

With the underlying assumption it was also a same state universe. This amounts to baseless speculation.

Something is added, at least that is what the current thinking points to, space itself is filled with the energy that started the big bang, this energy is believed to drive the expansion of space.

You base all again on the idea that universe was so small, it would have fit on the head of a pin. This you do solely by trying to trace back things using present state laws, and realities. You can't do that unless they could be proved. No more than Buzz Lightyear can fly to Infinity, and Beyond.

Distance is also time ..... this could also mean that it expanded in the past at a greater rate.

Coulda should woulda. IF the same state myth were real. It isn't. That would be why no one can support it.

Gravity squeezes space, or rather matter squeezes space, and gravity is the result.

But if present gravity only squeezed present space since a universe change 4400 years ago, and most of what we see was left from that other state, and not formed by present state processes, that is a moot point.

Sorry, I never said that. The inflow of space into matter would appear to have the same effect as gravity, that’s why I maintain that the laws of motion due to gravity would still hold.

You also need a present state universe, you didn't have one.

I meant by that that gravity does not self interact. The mass of the Black Hole pulls space towards it, and crushes the universe at its center. The reason light has a hard time escaping a Black Hole is because space has been pulled down into itself and has become basically curved.

Black holes are PO theory, and only 'seen' indirectly, by things that actually may have nothing to do with the same state past myth. There was not the time these things need to form.

It seems to me that space “curved†all the way around a black hole would have no “event horizon†at all. Space in this condition would’nt even leave a divot.
However, there would be, if the affect of gravity were due to the inflow of space.

PO past dreams.

Why? Is it so cumbersome for the light from every star in the sky to be visible to you?(within the constraints on your eyes' capability) As I said before, that light is basically equivalent to touch. Gravitons are the way matter interacts with space, space is wiggling. In a manner it is an entanglement of all things to each other that began with the universe and persists.

Present light began when the temporary state universe we know came to be. You assume this was the created state. No.

What I think the equation does is provide a value for the obvious, that energy, matter and space itself, are expressions of time.

Time as we know it is PO space time. A continuum that will not continue.

That the universe has no outside edge. (Space that has dimensions, cannot be adjacent to nothing, a singularity, that has no dimensions) Space cannot be a “four-torus†or any known geometrical shape within the universe, because they all must have an outside edge!
That space is composed entirety of real centers all separated by time.
That in the early universe, when it was very small and light may have even traveled at a higher constant; beams of light traversed the universe a multitude of times.

Thinking of our universe and limiting it to physical geometry, and laws cannot work. It was not created a physical only universe, and it will not stay as such. It doesn't have to be bordered by some nothingness, only something different, that also is spiritual.

His research supports my view, but I don’t agree with his conclusions.
For one, the universe and these “shells†will look the same from any galaxy.

We have been no further than our moon. Perhaps this is a little presumptuous?

 

[Ted]

According to the latest reported research the universe is expanding and at an ever increasing rate. This is a fact that has surprised many scientists.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[dad]

According to the latest reported research the universe is expanding and at an ever increasing rate. This is a fact that has surprised many scientists.

Shalom
Ted :D

That is a fact that has no basis in fact. Look into the reasons it is claimed that the universe is expanding sometime. It would largely be things like redshift, and the background radiation, which is interpreted a certain way.

 

[Ted]

dad :D

You seem to fail to understand the nature of science and scientific methodology.

You mentioned Adam and Eve above. It is of course a complete myth. None the less it is designed to teach a truth and that is that God created the earth in one fashion or another. It was also an early attempt to explain how evil came into the world. We know much better now.

Then you mention the word interpretation. That is an interesting word and when applied to the sacred scriptures that is exactly what one is reading; the human interpretation of their experiences and in the case of the gospels the writers' interpretations of the experience of Jesus. BTW not the writers to whom the gospels are attributed. They were later additions given to make finding things in the Bible easier.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[dad]

dad :D

You seem to fail to understand the nature of science and scientific methodology.

You mentioned Adam and Eve above. It is of course a complete myth.

You seem to fail to realize that science can't support that claim. Adam and Eve were, and are as real as you and I. If you show us the basis for that claim, you might realize you can't actually dismiss them.

None the less it is designed to teach a truth and that is that God created the earth in one fashion or another. It was also an early attempt to explain how evil came into the world. We know much better now.

No, you are trying to make apologies for God, as if He had it all wrong, and really meant something you invented, rather than what was clearly said. It wasn't Him that had it wrong.

Then you mention the word interpretation. That is an interesting word and when applied to the sacred scriptures that is exactly what one is reading; the human interpretation of their experiences and in the case of the gospels the writers' interpretations of the experience of Jesus. BTW not the writers to whom the gospels are attributed. They were later additions given to make finding things in the Bible easier.

We had the writings, and record, when it was officially put together does not matter. Some things are subject to interpretation, but some things are pretty clear and basic. You can't explain and interpret away creation. Sorry.

 

[Ted]

dad :D

Actually if you knew your history you would know that the story of Adam and Eve was borrowed from the Mesopotamians as was the concept of Satan. It is not an invention that is the reality. The whole of the Torah was put together during the Babylonian exile from several versions of oral tradition. That was about 650 BCE. "The Bible Unearther", Finkelman and Silberman, and others if you would like.

The New Testament itself was put together after reviewing hundreds of ancient documents. There were many copies of each of the books and they were copies of copies of copies and so on. Amongst those copies there were some 400 000 variants. The final choice for the Bible was in fact done by a vote. That in itself was subject to bias based on personal experiences. "Misquoting Jesus", B. Ehrman, and others if you would like.

We cannot make of the Bible what we want to make of it. Inerrancy was the invention of the reformers. Up to that point it was understood by most as a midrashic and metaphorical writing. "A History of Christianity", Paul Johnson; "Born of a Woman", J. Spong, Crossan in both lectures at the Vancouver School of Theology and his writings such as "The Birth of Christianity", M. Borg, M. Fox etc. Fundamentalism is in fact the invention of the reformers.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[Ted]

dad :D

The question to be asked of the Bible is not "Is it historically true?" but "What does it mean for us today?"

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[dad]

dad :D

The question to be asked of the Bible is not "Is it historically true?" but "What does it mean for us today?"

Shalom
Ted :D

That is the question you would like to ask. It is also important, but does not directly related to the creation evolution debate. If it is a bunch of fairy tales that never really happened, it really means squat anyhow. P, or get off the pot.

 

[dad]

dad :D

Actually if you knew your history you would know that the story of Adam and Eve was borrowed from the Mesopotamians as was the concept of Satan.

Actually, if you knew diddley, you'd know we have the only records that go back to creation week. Post flood pagans may have older writings, but that does not mean they have older records, or that the records they do have can be trusted as more than embellished, and paganized.

It is not an invention that is the reality. The whole of the Torah was put together during the Babylonian exile from several versions of oral tradition. That was about 650 BCE. "The Bible Unearther", Finkelman and Silberman, and others if you would like.

That is irrelevant because the records cover much further back than 650 years BC. Focusing on when certain compilations were assembled is a useless exercise, if the compilations represented stuff already there long before that.

The New Testament itself was put together after reviewing hundreds of ancient documents. There were many copies of each of the books and they were copies of copies of copies and so on. Amongst those copies there were some 400 000 variants. The final choice for the Bible was in fact done by a vote. That in itself was subject to bias based on personal experiences. "Misquoting Jesus", B. Ehrman, and others if you would like.

The records we as Christians had were there, and compiled, by inspired men, just as inspired as those that wrote it! To make sure that a few didn't get on the wrong channel, a vote was a nice touch, the overriding inspiration prevailed, and His will got done!! Smart, that Guy.

We cannot make of the Bible what we want to make of it. Inerrancy was the invention of the reformers.

Except that your insinuating it was not inspired is the error. Any other so called errors I have ever ever seen are easily blown away with a closer look at the silliness, and baselessness of them. God was right, the bible is right. Period.

Up to that point it was understood by most as a midrashic and metaphorical writing. "A History of Christianity", Paul Johnson; "Born of a Woman", J. Spong, Crossan in both lectures at the Vancouver School of Theology and his writings such as "The Birth of Christianity", M. Borg, M. Fox etc. Fundamentalism is in fact the invention of the reformers.

[/quote]

Believers have always lknown that God speaking was bang on. From Eden, when we got it in Person, to the sacred, well preserved scriptures of the Israelites. The record of witnesses to Jesus, and deciples was known to be scared. Get a grip, man.

Peace.

 

[Ted]

dad :D

Is it really necessary to stoop to personal attacks. Children call them put downs and know what that means and its causes.

You are trapped in the enlightenment and reformation era. Teachers are well known to use metaphor in their teaching. Profound truths are often better, than some allusion to history, being taught by metaphor. Something does not have to be historically accurate to present truth. That is a complete falsehood.

What happens here is that unless I think like some others I am "wrong". That is simply faulty thinking. If you are allowed your opinion than most certainly I should be allowed mine.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[dad]

dad :D

Is it really necessary to stoop to personal attacks. Children call them put downs and know what that means and its causes.

Not sure where you think these things were. I do put down ideas, not people. You exaltem, I'll assaultem.

You are trapped in the enlightenment and reformation era.

Stop the childish insults and put downs here. You are trapped in the box of the limitations of present only universe, physical only state realities. That is a fact evidenced by your words, not an insult like the childish ones you stoop to.

Teachers are well known to use metaphor in their teaching. Profound truths are often better, than some allusion to history, being taught by metaphor. Something does not have to be historically accurate to present truth. That is a complete falsehood.

Depends on what truth about what we are talking about. If we are talking about the state of the past at creation, or in the new heavens of the future, that is a truth you and science CAN say nothing about. Even you must be able to realize that much.

What happens here is that unless I think like some others I am "wrong". That is simply faulty thinking. If you are allowed your opinion than most certainly I should be allowed mine.

Of course you are allowed your opinion. Just don't call it science. Unless you are prepared to back it up. Or, if in the area of history, or some other arena, back that up with evidence. Your claim about the records of the pagans being older than the records of the Almighty in the hard drives of heaven, for example. You cannot support that.

Let's call a myth a myth. Your (plural, as in men of science) primordial earth, and all life coming from the crack of a rock, rather than that of a woman, and universe that could fit on the head of a pin is pure uncut, unsupportable myth. If you were to try to pass it off as science on the innocent kids, that would be despicable deception and distributing devious and dangerous delusions that are demonstrated as devoid of Deity, and diluted with darkness. Dig?

 

[Ted]

dad :D

I see "if you knew diddly . . ." is a put down. I have said you didn't know your history. One is a put down the other is not. One implies that I am totally ignorant while the other simply says you are unaware of some historical facts. Big difference.

Your last paragraph is certainly questionable.

As far as evidence goes I can support what I have said with a great deal of research findings. If you would like the evidence tell me what it is you would like. Of course when it comes down to it it is opinion based on what the researcher has discovered or not discovered.

I will give you one example. The exodus story as written is a myth. There is not one shred of archaeological evidence of any great migration as described in the Bible. They can locate much older buildings and villages in Palestine but absolutely nothing on the exodus. If one understands the term myth than one will realize that a myth is a story created to present a truth or truths. "Hebrew Origins", James Meek; "The Bible Unearthered" I. Finkelstein and N. Silberman; J. Crossan recognized as the world's premier Jesus scholar and an expert in Roman History given in his lectures at the Vancouver School of Theology.

Perhaps you view what I say as a threat because you want the certainty that the Bible seems to give and it is only a seeming certainty. My faith is not in a book but in the One of whom the book testifies, Jesus of Nazareth. I have no need to have it in a contract signed sealed and delivered. I trust completely in God.

Where is your evidence?

Shalom
Ted :D

We can either have a discussion or it can degenerate into something else.

 

[Ted]

dad :D

What is it, precisely, that makes your particular flavour of Christianity better than the other 21 999 Christian denominations in the world?

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[dad]

dad :D

What is it, precisely, that makes your particular flavour of Christianity better than the other 21 999 Christian denominations in the world?

Shalom
Ted :D

Jesus turned out to be real.

 

[Ted]

dad :D

Perhaps you would now answer my question. I can agree that Jesus turned out to be real but that is not the question I asked. My wife does that to. LOL

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[dad]

I see "if you knew diddly . . ." is a put down. I have said you didn't know your history. One is a put down the other is not. One implies that I am totally ignorant while the other simply says you are unaware of some historical facts. Big difference.

Well, the bible, I include as historical facts, you obviously don't. Therefore, you cannot claim to know history and omit it, or all you do is exhibit a bias and choice of choosing pagan history, and plugging your ears to God. You may not exclude the bible. Unless you prove that it has a wrong history. Many have tried such claims, but fall in the ashes of history. Perhaps some go toward claiming there was no Jesus, or was no Herod, or was no Goliath, etc. Yet, as time unfolds we get evidences of the ignorance of such baseless claims.

Example:
"Archaeologists digging at the purported biblical home of Goliath have unearthed a shard of pottery bearing an inscription of the Philistine's name, a find they claim lends historical credence to the Bible's tale of David's battle with Goliath."
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Culture/7000.htm
"The Hebrew University of Jerusalem announced Monday the discovery of the tomb and grave of Herod the Great, the Roman empire's "King of the Jews" in ancient Judea at the time of Jesus and Josephus. "
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Culture/11326.htm

And the doubts raised so often fade into the fraud mists of time as well.

"An Israeli antiquities collector who claimed he had discovered the burial box of Jesus' brother James will be charged with forgery next week, a Justice Ministry spokesman said Thursday.

...Golan came to prominence after the October 2002 disclosure of the existence of an ancient ossuary, or burial box, bearing the inscription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." At the time, the find was touted as one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of the modern era, demonstrating a physical connection between the modern world and the Bible.

However, Israel's Antiquities Authority concluded that the inscription on the 50-centimeter (20-inch) by 27-centimeter (11-inch) burial container was a forgery,.."

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Culture/4642.htm

Your last paragraph is certainly questionable.

Then question it, that is what a debate and discussion forum is all about.

As far as evidence goes I can support what I have said with a great deal of research findings. If you would like the evidence tell me what it is you would like. Of course when it comes down to it it is opinion based on what the researcher has discovered or not discovered.

I would like evidence of anything you claim. If you say there was no Eden, prove it, and show the evidence why not, etc. This is pretty basic stuff.

I will give you one example. The exodus story as written is a myth. There is not one shred of archaeological evidence of any great migration as described in the Bible. They can locate much older buildings and villages in Palestine but absolutely nothing on the exodus. If one understands the term myth than one will realize that a myth is a story created to present a truth or truths. "Hebrew Origins", James Meek; "The Bible Unearthered" I. Finkelstein and N. Silberman; J. Crossan recognized as the world's premier Jesus scholar and an expert in Roman History given in his lectures at the Vancouver School of Theology.

OK, let's look at that. If a ruler of proud Egypt just got whipped by God, defeated, and utterly humiliated, it is reasonable to assume that he would wipe the records as best he could. Now, if you refer to some evidence in the dessert, as people walked over it, what would you look for??? The food was from heaven!

Perhaps you view what I say as a threat because you want the certainty that the Bible seems to give and it is only a seeming certainty. My faith is not in a book but in the One of whom the book testifies, Jesus of Nazareth. I have no need to have it in a contract signed sealed and delivered. I trust completely in God.
So, the question echoes loudly, Where is your evidence?

 

[dad]

dad :D

Perhaps you would now answer my question. I can agree that Jesus turned out to be real but that is not the question I asked. My wife does that to. LOL

Shalom
Ted :D

I favor belief in Jesus, because I tried the salvation prayer, and it turned out to be a real up link to heaven, and real spirits, and a real Jesus, as in the here and now, not as in the historical Jesus. Therefore, if we know the Author, we have confidence in what is said.

 

[Ted]

dad :D

The exodus. A crowd of people as described in the exodus story would leave an indelible footprint on the landscape. What would they leave behind? Garbage, the dead, signs of massive encampment, artifacts such as dishes and weapons etc. The whole route as described has been searched intensively and there is nothing. When a simple dwelling can be found after thousands of years the residue of that many people walking through the desert would last far longer. There is no evidence. It did not happen that way.

Check the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman. The current view is that the story arose out of the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta.

No Adam and No Eve and no eden. In his book pg. 161 "Understanding the Old Testament", B. Anderson, a Bible scholar, he clearly shows that the creation stories are epic narratives, different from each other, and are designed to answer unanswerable questions. They are not history but a great ancient epic narrative. This view is supported by many other Bible scholars and based on years of research; Borg, Crossan, Anderson, Gordon, Spong, Fox and I could go on.

To add to that the creation stories are beyond belief even by faith. If taken literally they are absurd. If taken for what they are as metaphor and midrash they present profound truths.

You might be tempted to say that that is their opinion. Yes it is but based on a great deal of research not taken from a very profound book that contains many ancient myths, legends, folk tale, poetry, fiction, short story, theology, philosophy and some kernels of history thrown in.

The Bible is not in and of itself the absolute inerrant word of God. It becomes for Christians, the word of God by virtue of the fact that God speaks to us through the very human words of the Bible.

As an aside Professor Meek has traced the very name YHWH back to an ancient Arabic storm God. Not really any big deal as I don't believe the Divine cares what we call him/her. "Hebrew Origins", J. T. Meek.

Even the word Elohim another ancient word for God was borrowed from the Canaanites. That was the name of one of their gods. "Biblica", compiled by dozens of scholars who have done the research.

Now I have no problem if you want to read the Bible as literal and historic. The problem arises when the idea that educated people and those who think for themselves are required to believe in the impossible, turns them away from any faith in the Divine. This happens far too often. The fact is if I was required to so believe I would probably become a Buddhist or atheist. However, I am a devout Christian.

Shalom
Ted :D