[_ Old Earth _] The Reliability of the Whole Bible Depends on Genesis as History

[Arch Angle]

Genesis was put into the bible by the churches, long before martin Luther,with this leeway built in to "tell" us, so many thousands of yearslater, that the book is not to used as "how" god did it.

The book tells us god did do it.

If we need the book to beliteral, we have to investigate why Martin Luther has the truth that nobodyelse did. That lived closer to Christ times.

does the truth of the bibledepend on martin Luther's take? or the early church fathers take?

maybe that's a betterquestion about what truth there is?

 

[stovebolts]

However Cupid, the genealogical accounts in the Bible only add up to under 10,000 years. Evolution states millions.

True.
Those "species" lived only 950 years according to the statement in Gensis.

That in itself is difficult to support as a reasnable claim.

I believe a plain reading of scripture is adequate. Tell me, do you see any errors in the below outline that would account for millions of years?

Date:    Event:    				Scripture: 	Age of earth
8004 	Creation.  Adam was formed.		Gen 1:1-31	0
3874	Seth was born when Adam was 130		Gen 5:3		130
3769	Enos born when Seth was 105		Gen 5:6		235
3679	Cainan born when Enos was 90		Gen 5:9		325
3609	Mahalaleel born when Cainan was 70	Gen 5:12	395
3544	Jared born when Mahalaleel was 65	Gen 5:15	460
3382	Enoch born when Jared was 162		Gen 5:18	622
3317	Methuselah born when Enoch was 65	Gen 5:21	687
3130	Lamech born when Methuselah was 187	Gen 5:25	874
2948	Noah born when Lamech was 182		Gen 5:28	1056
2446	Shem born when Noah was 502		Gen 11:10	1558
2348	Flood when Noah was 600			Gen 7:6		1656
2346	Arphaxad born when Shem was 100		Gen 11:10	1658
2311	Salah born when Arphad was 35		Gen 11:12	1693
2281	Eber born when Salah was 30		Gen 11:14	1723
2246	Peleg born when Eber was 34		Gen 11:16	1758
2217	Reu born when Peleg was 30		Gen 11:18	1787
2185	Serug born when Reu was 32		Gen 11:20	1819
2155	Nahor born when Serug was 30		Gen 11:22	1849
2126	Terah born when Nahor was 29		Gen 11:24	1878
1996	Abraham born when Terah was 130		Gen 11:32/12:4	2008
1921	Abraham enters Canaan at 75		Gen 12:4	2083

1921    Abraham left Haran.  Gen 12:10, 430 Year promise made.
1491	430 Years to the date that Abraham leaves Haran Israel Exodus occurs.  Exodus 12:40  Year:  2513

1012    479 years after the Exodus Solomon builds the temple.  1 Kings 6:1  2992
974	Jeraboams golden calves 1 Kings 11:42		3030
584  	Final deportation of the Jews.  390 years Ezekeil 4:4-6		3420

0 Jesus comes on the scene...

But it would also be reasonable to assume the Bible writers could NEVER have been more specific and said 950,000 years, which as we now know, is actully closer to the truth of the matter.

What the biblical writers recorded was the age of each when they had thier son. For example:
Seth was born when Adam was 130
Enos born when Seth was 105
From a literal perspective, the writers of the Bible were pretty specific.

Caught between the Rock and and a hard plce, the option seems to be that the writers added the leeway, that a "day is like a thousand years to the lord."
With that crevat in mind, the parallels between paleontology and the genealogy compare quite well.

No offence friend, but using greek to define hebrew usually doesn't go over well. In other words, a slave is never over his master. That being said, when the writer of the NT says that a day is like a thousand years to the Lord, it must be noted the operative "Like". The text does not say a day is a thousand years. Sweet and low is like sugar, but it is not sugar. Ethanol is like gasoline, but it is not gasoline.

If we look at the word day in the Hebrew, we see that whenever morning and evening are mentioned in the relation of day, then a 24 hour day is always it's context and you won't find a Hebrew scholar that disagrees with this. The only "scholar" you will find that disagrees with this would be an evangelical Christian. Furthermore, we understand the 7th day to be a day of rest and it is based on a 7 day creation. If a day were a thousand years, then please explain to me why the Jews rest on the 7th day?

Take care.

 

[stovebolts]

err, Jesus taught us not to believe religion alone and idols.

And nowhere did Jesus tell us to follow the bible literally.

so now what?

what other piece of data do you have?

I don't know that I'm following you.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 

[stovebolts]

Genesis was put into the bible by the churches, long before martin Luther,with this leeway built in to "tell" us, so many thousands of yearslater, that the book is not to used as "how" god did it.

The book tells us god did do it.

If we need the book to beliteral, we have to investigate why Martin Luther has the truth that nobodyelse did. That lived closer to Christ times.

does the truth of the bibledepend on martin Luther's take? or the early church fathers take?

maybe that's a betterquestion about what truth there is?

Again, I'm not tracking with you. What does Martin Luther have to do with this?
Thanks for taking the time to explain this better to me.

 

[Arch Angle]

I am ok with tracking. Do what youwant. I learnt from Christ, the truth isthe truth. I will go to the cross in his name. You are an honest guy, I have no problem with you challenging me, maybewe both will learn something.

you ban me, they killed him. cool.

What does martin Luther have to do with it?

We are looking for the truth in the bible. Wouldn't genesis have to be"literally" true for the bible to be true? I say, no. looking at genesis to make the bible true is wrong. we should look to Christto make it truer.

so now I question who started this stuff about "literalbible". Genesis to prove the wordof god? It wasn’t Jesus that said that.

when did people say that we have to follow the bible instead of "Christ"?

wasn't that martin Luther at the start of that?

 

[Arch Angle]

err, Jesus taught us not to believe religion alone and idols.

And nowhere did Jesus tell us to follow the bible literally.

so now what?

what other piece of data do you have?

I don't know that I'm following you.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

so I would respond with quotes that point to Jesus nottaking pharoses to literal. I wouldrespond that the way to the truth is threw Christ, not the bible. That is the whole of his message.

I shy away from quotes, because we can select quotes thatsupport either side. But in this case, when listed, they clearly point to Jesusteaching us to "look past literal religion". they point to "Christ"not the bible.

You have quotes, I have quotes. Now what? Axioms. What do we think isreasonable?

Christ is my way …. we both claim this ... now what?

Jesus taught in parables. "genesis" is a parable.

Jesus taught in parables, the bible is a parable.

parables help us learn. Jesus guides us to the truth. "… threw me …"

 

[VirginShallConceive]

That being said, when the writer of the NT says that a day is like a thousand years to the Lord, it must be noted the operative "Like". The text does not say a day is a thousand years. Sweet and low is like sugar, but it is not sugar. Ethanol is like gasoline, but it is not gasoline.

I liked this.

Some scripture is taken in a variety of ways by a variety of people. Sometimes, you can't just use scripture to back up scripture in order to get your point across. Sometimes, you dig deep and find that certain comparison, whatever it is, that will make things clearer to the person you are trying to reach. Having said that, even that sometimes doesn't work. But, I feel the need to give credit where credit is due and point out that I just witnessed a valiant effort.

 

[stovebolts]

Well AB, Not sure what your talking about when you say things like ban you and kill him. But let's let that one go ok?

I know a little about Martin Luther, but probably not as much as I should. I know that he followed heavily from Augustine's teachings in that he was trying to stay close to the Word of God and was resisting the authority that the Roman Catholic Church was imposing upon it's members. In other words, Luther was trying to "Get back to the Bible" and "Get away from man made rules and traditions". As far as following Jesus and omitting God's written word (The Bible) and as far as following the Spirit in disregard for God's Word (The Bible), there was a movement in the first century called montanism. I don't see Luther as fighting their cause.

Jesus gave his disciples marching orders before he left.
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Notice: Jesus said to have them observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. If we look back to the teachings of Jesus, he is referring to the correct interpretation of Torah. Where Jesus disagrees with the scholars and scribes is that they have missed the intent of Torah and it's true purpose.

Coming full circle, Jesus even said, Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

When I read this, I"m sure Jesus was speaking in regard to the creation account. That's the way I read it at least.

 

[stovebolts]

Jesus taught in parables. "genesis" is a parable.

Jesus taught in parables, the bible is a parable.

parables help us learn. Jesus guides us to the truth. "… threw me …"

While there are parables in the Bible, the whole Bible is not a parable.

Within the Old Testament we do not find "parables". Rather, we find "Mashal". In other words, what we find are "Stories with Intent". The easiest example to see this is would be when Nathan tells the Mashal to David after David's encounter with Bathsheba.

2 Samuel 12
King James Version (KJV)
12 And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.

2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:

3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.

4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

5 And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:

6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

If we look at Genesis, it's not a Mashal and I don't know of anyone that sees the book as a Mashal.

I know I'm talking directly to you and I hope it doesn't offend you. I'm just not very good at buffering my words.

As far as your piont, "Threw me", I agree with that statment. It is through Christ that we live. After all, we are his workmanship!

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Grace and Peace.

 

[stovebolts]

That being said, when the writer of the NT says that a day is like a thousand years to the Lord, it must be noted the operative "Like". The text does not say a day is a thousand years. Sweet and low is like sugar, but it is not sugar. Ethanol is like gasoline, but it is not gasoline.

I liked this.

Some scripture is taken in a variety of ways by a variety of people. Sometimes, you can't just use scripture to back up scripture in order to get your point across. Sometimes, you dig deep and find that certain comparison, whatever it is, that will make things clearer to the person you are trying to reach. Having said that, even that sometimes doesn't work. But, I feel the need to give credit where credit is due and point out that I just witnessed a valiant effort.

It was the sweet and low wasn't it LOL!

 

[Sparkey]

Coming full circle, Jesus even said, Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

When I read this, I"m sure Jesus was speaking in regard to the creation account. That's the way I read it at least.

I like this thought, because I disagree with the premise and title of this topic, but only slightly. Genesis isn't the plumb-line that we may hold things up to as we check ourselves and those constructions that we behold. Jesus is. He is the only true "plumb-line" or "measuring stick" that may be used as a "standard" to see whether something is upright and true.

So when we look at Jesus as the example, and when we consider what He said, from several points of view we find that yes, He did quote Genesis. And it did so in a very unusual way.

Ever had someone tell you, ‘You’re missing the whole point! The purpose of Genesis is to teach that God is our Creator. We should not be divisive over the small details. Genesis teaches the theological truth of “Who?” and “Why?” not about the “How?” and “When?”’ Or else they say that the Bible is a book for faith and morality, not history.

An obvious answer is, why should we trust Genesis when it says God created if we can’t trust it on the details? After all, Jesus told Nicodemus, ‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ (John 3:12).

Selected Quote from: Genesis: Bible authors believed it to be history, ‘The important thing is that God created, isn’t it?’ by Jonathan Sarfati, CMI–Australia

Jesus mentioned "earthly things" and his point was that if we were not able to believe Him in those things (being smaller), how then could we believe him in the larger things? Here's what Jesus said about that:

Jesus told Nicodemus, ‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ (John 3:12).

Sarfati (quoted above) goes on to reason that, "if Genesis can’t be trusted on an earthly thing, such as Earth’s age, the sequence of creative acts upon it, or the Flood that covered it, then why trust it on a heavenly thing such as who the Creator was?"

When we turn back and look at what Jesus said while speaking about Divorce a couple things become clear. One was that he considered Scripture to be a reliable source that could be used to settle difference of opinion. Of course, those who follow Jesus and are Christian will also believe that the Bible is a more sure word than the words of a couple scholars taken from the context of a dispute. But Jesus didn't leave it, saying essentially, "You may resolve this by examining Scripture, the final authority," but went on to quote a select passage from Gen 1 and add to it another select passage from Gen 2. He used two Scriptures combined (that we speaking about one topic) to form his doctrine and teaching about Divorce and settle an large dispute and clarify a misunderstanding that the Saducees had.

But neither group needed to be corrected about the Creation Week itself. Here's what He (Jesus) said about that: "But at the beginning of creation God “made them male and female. … For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one’ (Mark 10:6–8)." Now that is the logos of God speaking. He was there. He didn't mention the large populations necessary for multiple adaptions but instead mentioned one man and one woman. He also, in terms of Marriage and Divorce, explained the reason why they came together. "For this is the reason..."

Turning from Jesus (our only true plumb-line, our only upright standard and His teaching) we consider Moses. This was the man that got the tablets that were written by the finger of God into stone. Perhaps the "finger of God" is an allegory (pretty sure it is) but the tablets of stone were described as, well, as stone. The law, including the 4th Commandment was written in stone. And here is what the man who got the law from God said about that, "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God," and the reason He gave was, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."

Clearly the time-frame is important. Other "interpretations" of this make the commandment meaningless. "The Lord took billions of years to do one God-day of work, and it takes man only 1 day to do one Man-day of work, so since man is greater, he must rest after 6 billion years or so????" :crazy

 

[Sparkey]

Now there may be some small "squiggle room" when we look at what Jesus said directly because He was speaking about Marriage and Divorce and not precisely about time. He did say "at the beginning of creation," affirming what Moses had said about the Creation Week.

Paul pointed to the same Scripture and revealed a mystery also, but then, Paul wasn't speaking about time-frame either. Paul too spoke about something given to Him by God in revelation and shared the mystery and the solution. He spoke of the Mystery of Christ and the Church coming together in reference to what was done "at the beginning". Notice this mystery wasn't (and isn't) about time. It's about union and unity and joining together and being built up, a favorite theme of Paul. He wasn't one to tear things down needlessly. Both Jesus and Paul are examples that we may follow. Paul said, "follow me as I follow Christ".

Moses, was also teaching something that was given to him by God and he was speaking about time. He specifically modeled the days of the week based on the week of Gods actions in the beginning. It was all about time, not about Divorce, not about "mysteries". There are many depths that call to each of us and can be found at the "depths of His waterbrooks" where "deep calls to deep".

 

[Arch Angle]

"track", I though that meant "watching me". I didn't know what "trackme" meant.

Luther? ... Getting back to the bible? or was he trying to get back to christ?

who started "literal bible", when did that stance take hold?

You have not offered a strong argument for rejecting"non-literal" bible as a more reasonable stance.

Jesus never said to take the bible literally. Never. Infact, he clearly spoke against literal religious ideas.

I mean, we can "state" the bible all we want. I don't do the tossing of quotes. It is dumb doing that. It proves nothing.

now what? back to what we see.

1) the early church fathers, the ones that know more than you and me, never intended for it to used that way.

2) Jesus never told us to take a religion literally. Infact, he was against literal priest and pastors.

3) Jesus spoke in parables, Jesus used parables. and youtell me that the bible is not parables? Iam having real trouble seeing Jesus using literal stories in his lessons. Thatjust does not match observations. It does not fit with how Jesus taught and interacted with us.

You are asking to me to look at Jesus, and how he showed us to be better "Jews", and to dump all that to claim he showed us ... to be "better bible followers".

You are asking me to dump "the way to the truth isthrew Jesus" and substitute in

"the way to the truth is threw the bible". and you are using genesis to support that? sure, I agreee, literal creation supports literal bible. but literal bible is "false".

 

[Sparkey]

It is dumb doing that. It proves nothing.

I understand your message about your personal decision. I can not understand how anyone may take their opinion and cast it onto others. Is that what you would like to do? I think no. I think that you already understand what we are thinking and doing here.

You are asking to me to look at Jesus

Yes, that is what I am asking. It is my claim that he is the only standard by which any may be measured and further, it is my claim that neither you, nor I, have come up to the full measure of our Christ who admonishes that we live within the Peace that he has left for us.

John 14:27
Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

New International Version (©2011)

 

[Free]

You have not offered a strong argument for rejecting"non-literal" bible as a more reasonable stance.

Jesus never said to take the bible literally. Never. Infact, he clearly spoke against literal religious ideas.

I mean, we can "state" the bible all we want. I don't do the tossing of quotes. It is dumb doing that. It proves nothing.

now what? back to what we see.

1) the early church fathers, the ones that know more than you and me, never intended for it to used that way.

2) Jesus never told us to take a religion literally. Infact, he was against literal priest and pastors.

3) Jesus spoke in parables, Jesus used parables. and youtell me that the bible is not parables? Iam having real trouble seeing Jesus using literal stories in his lessons. Thatjust does not match observations. It does not fit with how Jesus taught and interacted with us.

I would really like to see support for these claims, particularly points 2 and 3.

 

[cupid dave]

ABS;
2) Jesus never told us to take a religion literally. Infact, he was against literal priest and pastors.

3) Jesus spoke in parables, Jesus used parables. and youtell me that the bible is not parables? Iam having real trouble seeing Jesus using literal stories in his lessons. Thatjust does not match observations. It does not fit with how Jesus taught and interacted with us.


Free:
I would really like to see support for these claims, particularly points 2 and 3.[/quote]

?

Matthew 13:34
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:


A parable is a metaphor.
It is like telling about 22 ancient men who were the direct ancestors to modern man, today.
Saying that all other mankind vanished as if extinct because of a great tide of water rushed over them and the drown, with them, all their world about what animals are and their names and kinds.

A parable is like a story wherein all the world we know was bundled up into a boat and set afloat into a new mental heaven and new physical earth that excluded all other previous humans, in a fresh new start.
The story would tell how strange men breed with lesser ape-men, and mighty new kinds of humans appeared as if evolution was at work.
It would say that these new kinds of men came in three types or racial stocks.

It would not use hard factual scientific statements to tell the story to people who could never understand those words.





Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

 

[Free]

ABS;
2) Jesus never told us to take a religion literally. Infact, he was against literal priest and pastors.

3) Jesus spoke in parables, Jesus used parables. and youtell me that the bible is not parables? Iam having real trouble seeing Jesus using literal stories in his lessons. Thatjust does not match observations. It does not fit with how Jesus taught and interacted with us.


Free:
I would really like to see support for these claims, particularly points 2 and 3.

?

Matthew 13:34
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:


A parable is a metaphor.
It is like telling about 22 ancient men who were the direct ancestors to modern man, today.
Saying that all other mankind vanished as if extinct because of a great tide of water rushed over them and the drown, with them, all their world about what animals are and their names and kinds.

A parable is like a story wherein all the world we know was bundled up into a boat and set afloat into a new mental heaven and new physical earth that excluded all other previous humans, in a fresh new start.
The story would tell how strange men breed with lesser ape-men, and mighty new kinds of humans appeared as if evolution was at work.
It would say that these new kinds of men came in three types or racial stocks.

It would not use hard factual scientific statements to tell the story to people who could never understand those words.





Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Were you addressing me? Because if you were I don't see how your post addresses anything that I said.

 

[stovebolts]

ABS;
2) Jesus never told us to take a religion literally. Infact, he was against literal priest and pastors.

3) Jesus spoke in parables, Jesus used parables. and youtell me that the bible is not parables? Iam having real trouble seeing Jesus using literal stories in his lessons. Thatjust does not match observations. It does not fit with how Jesus taught and interacted with us.


Free:
I would really like to see support for these claims, particularly points 2 and 3.

?

Matthew 13:34
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:


A parable is a metaphor.
It is like telling about 22 ancient men who were the direct ancestors to modern man, today.
Saying that all other mankind vanished as if extinct because of a great tide of water rushed over them and the drown, with them, all their world about what animals are and their names and kinds.

A parable is like a story wherein all the world we know was bundled up into a boat and set afloat into a new mental heaven and new physical earth that excluded all other previous humans, in a fresh new start.
The story would tell how strange men breed with lesser ape-men, and mighty new kinds of humans appeared as if evolution was at work.
It would say that these new kinds of men came in three types or racial stocks.

It would not use hard factual scientific statements to tell the story to people who could never understand those words.





Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

A parable is a story with intent. It's Hebrew counterpart is called a Mashal. The thing about a Mashal and a Parable is that it can be a true story or a made up story, thus they may contain metaphor or simile, but they are more than metaphor or simile. They are Stories with Intent. Furthermore, they don't have to be specific or technically accurate and you can get yourself into a lot of trouble if you miss it's main intent as they often lack particular detail simply because detail isn't important. What's important is the intent of the story. Get the jist?

To take the idea of a parable and do what your doing is to bastardize scripture.

 

[cupid dave]

To take the idea of a parable and do what your doing is to bastardize scripture.

yeah, yeah, yeah,...

Anyone who see the intent different than you is bastardizing while your interpretations should have prominence in any discussion simply because you have a large and traditional medieval way of explaining the parable, in spite it is NOT a metaphor that can be shown to correspond exactly to what you attribute the author to be talking about.

You actually end up with a myth after explaining your metaphor, because the details are surrealistic and irrational when you finish.

You will see a local flood, not one under the whole heavens.
You will see water pilled up 5 miles to the mountain tops.
You will see a boat carrying the physical animal both extinct and alive now into the last 4000 years for the first time.

You oppose a rational supporting version of the Bible for magic, myth, and made up things that are illogical.
Why?

Isn't religion better when Science supports genesis?

 

[Adam]

Science doesn't support genesis, so, no, forcing false similarities, fabricating "evidence," and fostering deception to push religion does not improve it.


You are trivializing scripture as well as diminishing its credibility.