Often raised objections to the Bible

[wonby1]

Over the years I've encountered a steady diet of commonly held notions about the Bible and is why many say they don't believe. The list includes:

1. Story of Genesis. The earth older than thousands of years.

2. Story of the Great Flood. There is no geological evidence for it.

3. Destruction of entire cities by the hand of God, as well as the Israelites ordered to kill every man, woman, and child in conquered areas. How can a loving God allow this? In general, people inevitably ask the question about how a loving God could allow pain in general in their lives since we have all been mortally wounded in some way and at some juncture in our lives.

To get things rolling, lets start with one at a time by starting with number 1.

As for myself, I've struggled over the years with the notion that science points to an earth much older than thousands of years. I could understand if there were only one method to measure the age of the earth because it might be skewed in some way, however, there are three unrelated ways to measure the age of the universe pointing to about 15 billion years.

I read a book called, "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Gerald Schoeder. He is both part theologian and scientist. He did some digging and came up with some ancient Jewish scholars who came to some pretty startling conclusions based soley on the original Hebrew translation of Genesis. They all concluded that the time being discussed in the first 6 days of Genesis are not really 6 literal days but were much longer. He then comes up with his own theory as to what each day literally represents. He theorized that since time is not constant and can be manipulated by such things as speed and mass, much of time since the initial Big Bang has been warped. With the universe being estimated to be about 15 billion years old he theorized that in each day of Genesis time halved. That means that day one was 8 billion years, day 2 was 4 billion years, day 3 was 2 billions years etc. The astonishing thing is that if you compare day 5 in the Bible when life was created in the waters, it matches the era of the Cambrian explosion when science says that lie exploded in the waters on earth etc.

From his perspective, the problem lies in not taking the original Hebrew text literally enough and not the other way round.

 

[Vanguard]

Allow me to direct you to a thread I did a while back: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=48843

 

[wonby1]

Thanks. I'm wondering if your thread will go as far as mine. LOL. There does not seem to be much interest here for this type of thing, however, I rather enjoy science and it pains me to see the war between science and religion, so much so that most scientists do not proclaim any religious affiliations.
In addition, we have generations of children being told in science class that the earth is billions of years old and the theory of evolution and their parents and preachers saying that if you believe the Bible you can't believe these things. Essentially this boils down to more and more children being dillusioned towards one end or the other.

From my vantage point, it all boils down to those of faith not familiar with science, thus not respecting it, and those of science not familiar with theology bashing it as well. In the end, what you wind up with is the Creation Museum in Kentucky saying that the earth is only thousands of years old with scientists protesting the falsehoods, and Dawkins writing the God Delusion which is a laughable attempt at understanding theology. In end they both look stupid.

In the book I mentioned, Dr. Schroeder makes the observation that the orginal Hebrew uses the words evening and morning, an odd way of describing the passage of time. According to the ancient rabbis who studied the text, they are root words meaning "disorder" and "order". As we all know, or those who know anything about science, time is relative. So to whom is time relative before man comes on the scene? In fact, what is a day before the sun is even created? However, if you take the time table from the day Adam was created, it all works out. When Adam comes on the scene then time is described differently and the time table works.

In terms of Adam being created, Schroeder revels that ancient Jewish scholars made some startling conclusions, just from reading the original Hebrew text. For example, they had come to the conclusion that Adam and Eve were not the only "humanoids" at that time. In essense, man became man ONLY when God breathed his life spirit into him. After all, what makes us to be in the image of God. Is it merely intelligence? I say it is being a triune being, even if that triune being is mentally deficient in some way. If not, then I would think it would be OK to treat the mentally deficient like beasts of burden if their only value is intelligence.

Anyway, looking at your previous thread I think you would really enjoy the book.

From my own observations, when I read Genesis something pops out at me. For example, God seems to speak to the waters to bring forth life on dry land, an odd way to go about things if you think God merely zaps things into existence. After all, it clearly states that mankind is made from the dust of the earth, so it would stand to reason that all the building blocks are already here and God simply employs them to create.

I do have to say, however, when I approach most Christians with this they think that I have forsaken the faith altogether and they get that glazed look in their eye as if to say, "Whatever". So I mostly just share it with those struggling with those that respect both the field of science and the Bible.

 

[Slider]

Let me propose a question, then expound: The Bible accounts for some 6-7 thousand years, which is seen when you look at the geneology of the people mentioned. So when did this timeline begin? Did it begin in Genesis 1 or Genesis 4?

In other words, how long was Adam in the Garden before he fell? He was immortal at that point. We get 7 days mentioned in Genesis 1 (if you want to say they were literal, 24 hour and consectutive periods, fine -- it doesn't affect my point). Now, how long after Adam was created was he tending the Garden for? We don't have a timeline on that. In short, perhaps the 6-7 thousand years didn't begin until Adam and Eve fell and were kicked out of the Garden.

 

[wonby1]

Let me propose a question, then expound: The Bible accounts for some 6-7 thousand years, which is seen when you look at the geneology of the people mentioned. So when did this timeline begin? Did it begin in Genesis 1 or Genesis 4?

In other words, how long was Adam in the Garden before he fell? He was immortal at that point. We get 7 days mentioned in Genesis 1 (if you want to say they were literal, 24 hour and consectutive periods, fine -- it doesn't affect my point). Now, how long after Adam was created was he tending the Garden for? We don't have a timeline on that. In short, perhaps the 6-7 thousand years didn't begin until Adam and Eve fell and were kicked out of the Garden.

It simply does not say. You tell me. However, if you take the time of the "fall" to present day, the time line works.

 

[Slider]

It simply does not say. You tell me. However, if you take the time of the "fall" to present day, the time line works.

Yep, those were my points. It doesn't say how long Adam was in the Garden. I wasn't saying how long he was, just raising the question for discussion sake. And yes, the timeline does work from fall to present day.

 

[Grazer]

There is geological evidence for the flood. The way the soils are layered and the deposits in them give evidence by the objects and types of deposits that they find in them. I've read articles and watched vids about this, they are all over. There are also articles which give contrarily positioned views. Sometimes you can research the credentials of the one writing the article and gain insight into the probable validity, or not, of his writing, but that's still doesn't conclusively prove anything because even an educated man with credentials could whore his credentials to spread deception. The only way to know for sure is to seek God and pursue faith, wherein the Holy Spirit will reveal truths to you. As you grow in Christ and faith when one reads you will know what is true.

It's possible to raise doubt about anything with lawyerspeak, and this will always be so. We live in an age of faith and hard heartedness. This is how God wants it. Putting one faith and trust in God will always be rewarded with revelation of truth. Putting ones faith and trust in man will always take one further away from God. This thread could go on for 100 pages and will not prove anything one way or the other.
Hebrews 11:6
6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him./ (NIV)

Have fun!

Indeed but as I've put quite often, my faith in God is not based on any interpretation of genesis

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Grazer]

I remember. You trust very much in the Lord Jesus, his words, teachings and actions from Him himself. May I point out that Jesus quotes from every part of Scripture. There are 179 verses of Jesus' own teaching in which He refers to Scripture, that is, about ten per cent of his recorded ministry consists of quotation from the Old Testament. He appeals to virtually all those passages that men grumble about today. He refers to Genesis 2 saying "In the beginning God made them male and female." He appeals to the murder of Abel, Noah's flood, reminds them of Lot leaving Sodom with fire and brimstone falling upon it - "Remember Lot's wife," he says. He refers to Moses being spoken to at the burning bush, Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness, Jonah in the whale, the men of Nineveh repenting, Namaan being cleansed from his leprosy, Elijah going to the widow of Zarephath, and the Queen of the South coming to Solomon. He quotes five prophets directly. He quotes every part of Isaiah as "Isaiah" saying those words. He quotes from eight Psalms. He is familiar with Old Testament biblical theology and its whole history of redemption. His teaching is full of Scripture. I believe that alone would validate every part of the scriptures to you or anyone. ??

But quoting something doesn't mean the person quoting it believes its literal. They may do but merely quoting it doesn't

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Grazer]

Are you serious? This seems to imply that Jesus did not speak the truth?

Literal and truth are 2 very different things. I can say a true statement without being literal. We use metaphors in our everyday speak all the Time

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[wonby1]

Of course, this is another approach. Just say that things you don't agree with or understand should not be taken literally.

 

[Danus]

Or, a better approach might be to keep the point of Genesis in mind. That point is; That God created the havens and the earth. All this speculation about how, and the age is irrelevant to knowing and Loving God. Be careful chasing rabbits. They often only lead to a hole.

 

[Sinthesis]

At some point you have to be willing to admit you just don't know. Science does this all the time. Yet without the threat of looming damnation, the consequences of scientific theoretical error aren't perceived as eternal.
It is a lot more difficult when it comes to our religious faith to admit to doubt because of the perceived consequences if we're wrong. So we gather up all sorts of 'evidence' and hold to it religiously to bolster our faith, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In effect, we choose to elevate our desired perception of the world and how it works over the way God has apparently chosen to govern the world, which ultimately must be beyond our understanding. Job knew better.

 

[wonby1]

Or, a better approach might be to keep the point of Genesis in mind. That point is; That God created the havens and the earth. All this speculation about how, and the age is irrelevant to knowing and Loving God. Be careful chasing rabbits. They often only lead to a hole.

The question here is the veracity of scripture. If it is not all truth, then the question begs, what is in error and what is not? What say you? Is it all truth or are there errors?

From my perspective, the Bible has proven itself to be a reputable source of historical information. After all, it is the only holy text I know of that is based upon a scientific discipline, namely, Biblican Archaeology. As a result, I have trouble with people saying that the stories in the OT are simply metaphors.

 

[wonby1]

At some point you have to be willing to admit you just don't know. Science does this all the time. Yet without the threat of looming damnation, the consequences of scientific theoretical error aren't perceived as eternal.
It is a lot more difficult when it comes to our religious faith to admit to doubt because of the perceived consequences if we're wrong. So we gather up all sorts of 'evidence' and hold to it religiously to bolster our faith, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In effect, we choose to elevate our desired perception of the world and how it works over the way God has apparently chosen to govern the world, which ultimately must be beyond our understanding. Job knew better.

I am only talking in terms of apologetics. I agree that as being labelled those of faith, we at some juncture concede that something is beyond our rational thought to "prove", otherwise it would not be faith. In fact, if there is a God, faith is the only alternative to relating to that God since he is all knowing and we are not. At some juncture, we must admit that we are unable to understand something at some point being the finite beings we are. However, that does not mean that there are not better ways to reason in order to bring some to the faith. After all, ours is not a blind faith. We all have been presented with "evidences" whether it be exposure to someones witness or some supernatural encounter or something in scripture that we cannot deny as true etc.

 

[Danus]

The question here is the veracity of scripture. If it is not all truth, then the question begs, what is in error and what is not? What say you? Is it all truth or are there errors?

From my perspective, the Bible has proven itself to be a reputable source of historical information. After all, it is the only holy text I know of that is based upon a scientific discipline, namely, Biblican Archaeology. As a result, I have trouble with people saying that the stories in the OT are simply metaphors.

well, it depends on what truth we are looking for in the bible. The bible is symbolic and metaphoric in many ways, but that is to enhance the message of truth the bible is offering. Take for example the age of the earth. If we are seeking this answer from the bible, I guess we can gleam some truth about that, but if that's the truth we seek then two things. 1. we are not using the best source and more importantly, 2. we are missing greater a truth that the bible is trying to communicate.

Does it matter that the earth is 8,000 years or 8 billion years old? Again, it depends. For some it does, but the bible is not trying to tell us that, and if we focus on that we could miss what the bible is trying to say. When it come to the message of God, it is a rabbit hole when we chase the age of the earth with God's word.

Many atheist will use the bible try and answer scientific questions, and in so doing will attempt to diminish the word of God. Many Christians will take up the challenge in the same way by using the word of God to answer an atheist question, and there by also diminishing the word of God to someone who needs it. Does the age of the earth matter to the fact that God created it? because that's the point of Gods word in the first few chapters of Genesis; In the beginning God created the havens and earth.