Before I begin, let me inform you that I am myself a Christian. I believe that God watches over us, that He loves us, and that He sent his son, Jesus Christ, to save us from eternal death. But I also believe in science; in Math, Physics, Chemistry, Evolution, Entropy, the Big Bang, and the Multiverse. These beliefs do not (and should not) be contradictary, and unfortunately many people on both sides of the debate (both Christians and Agnostics) do not seem to understand. This stems mainly from the way Christians preach the Word, and the way Agnostics view the religion and its beliefs. Most of these beliefs are flawed on both sides...

"All of God's word is inevitable. True, it's a warning. But if God promises the happening...well, when has God broken a promise?":
Yes, it is true that according to the Christian belief, God will never break his word. But the book of Revalations was written by a human, not by God, and it was ADDED many many years after the Bible was originally created. God never actually "promised" it. It was put there by prophetic men as a warning to future generations to be wary, lest they allow the coming of the End of Days. Priests and ministers I have discussed this with agree that the doomsayers' forboding words are not inevitable, and in fact easily avoided, so long as we stay pure and vigilant, and promote this behavior in our neighbors. God gave us free will, after all... no future is written in stone for mortal man.

As far as today's Bible being the Word of God? I don't think so. At least not entirely. It is a beautifully written work with a solid and pure message, but it is skewed. In order to affectively interpret the Word, you must study the original books written in their original language... and you must do so for youself! Only you can know what God whispers to you as you read those pages, and it may very well be different for you than anyone else. To literally interpret the Bible in English is an inherently flawed perspective, because you are not just interpreting the Word, you are interpreting some other human's interpreted translation, as well as risking mistranslation and intentional/unintentional omitions by the translators, printers, and publishers. In the original language, many words and phrases become extrememly ambiguous. It was left to the translator to decide on a specific translation. For example, the word "day" also held the meaning "era"! If the translator chose "day", when in fact "era" was the correct meaning, then the meaning of the statement "God created the Earth in 6 days" becomes "God created the Earth in 6 eras". This opens up everything! Dinosaurs, the formation of the solar system, even the Big Bang and Evolution become plausible when literally interpreting the Bible with a proper translation.

Over the ages, men (including several popes) have added and removed passages, pages, even entire books to/from the Bible, and the Bible even specifically decrees that to do so is a damnable sin! How can we trust this heavily filtered and censored version of the Word? Some might claim that "God wants us to have his Word, so he would have protected it even through such translations and perversions", but if that is so, why are there so many different versions of the Bible? Why are there different denominations of Christianity? Which one is the correct version? Which the correct church?

Now, look at your statement regarding my counterpoint: "I am sorry, but that seems a bit vague.
I'm not sure I can accept interpretation that way."
If you find my vague interpretation lacking credibility, what convinces you of the validity of the Bible translator's interpretation? Do you see how unclear things can be if you close your mind and limit the possible meanings anything written in the good book can have? There are no contridictions in the Bible, SO LONG AS IT IS NOT TAKEN 100% LITERALLY.

To take this a step further, even taking the ORIGINAL scribing of the Bible 100% literally is unwise. Jesus Christ himself spoke mostly in metaphor and fable! Why, if we are not to take every word from Jesus' very lips as literal, should we take every word of the Bible as such?

With all of this in mind, such vague and unclear signs such as "Jesus will return, decend from the heavens upon a great white steed", or "with the crimson moon and dying sun", or describing Jesus' tongue as a sword, etc, are simply impossible to properly interpret. I suppose you could try and take them literally, but that just wouldn't make much sense. (For all we know, this "white steed" may be a comet on an collision course with the then-wicked Earth...)

Many Christians (myself included when I was younger) are unfortunately raised to believe a totally literal translation of the Bible. Why? Because that's what our parents taught us. Why? Because that's what their parents taught them... and so the cycle continues. But are they right? Just because that's what was taught? Even a school teacher makes mistakes now and then. The Bible should be a personal experience. Read it... really read it for yourself, and you just might see things in a new light.

I do New Testament Greek. If you want me to give you the Greek words/my translation of any New Testament scripture, I would be happy to do so.
Every book of the bible was written by man. So I guess since it was MArk, Mathhew, Luke, and John (or somebody for them) wrote the Gospel, the gospel should not be trusted? That completely takes out christian belief. Also, I think Revelations was written by John. There are cross-references in the bible that have John having a vision of heaven, and John's recording of such must be credible (to some etent).

About the bible in six days/eras. I have a Hexaglot bible, and Hebrew dictionary. Here's day: יומית. In the Hebrew bible, it is in fact the same thing. However, let us look at the hebrew for era. תקופה. That is completely different. Give me a scripture that uses the word, "era" and I'll look it up in the hexaglot.

So sorry, but I think you need to look a the Hebrew for yourself.

Oh yeah, and morover, Hebraic poetry does not form in the way the way Genesis is written.

That's not the point.
In greek, you can tell when a metaphor is used.
The way Greek is written you can tell by the form.

I can't remember, but I think that I recall reading/hearing that John wrote Revelations in Patmos or some such thing. It is still just a warning, and a very powerful one at that. Many prophets have had visions, not all of which have come true. The thought that leads me most strongly to believe that God often warns us is this: if it is going to happen and there is nothing you can do about it, why do we need to know it will happen? To show us what terrible things could come to pass, this seems to indicate that the particular cataclysm can avoided... or will occur if nothing changes. As for the specifics of Revalations, much can be taken literally, but a lot cannot... if you asked a man who had never seen a gun to describe what happens when you shoot someone, he may use metaphor unintentionally. "The iron claw spat fire, and thunder boomed. The man clutched his chest, struck by a divine bolt, and fell dead!" If God showed John scenes of global destruction, meteors and asteroids falling, perhaps even missiles being fired and detinated, jet fighters flying, how do you think he would describe it? What words would he use? He doesn't know what a "missile" or "meteor" is. For far-future predictions and visions, it almost seems necessary to reinterpret what the viewer describes, as they probably see things they could not possibly comprehend. (And on a quick side-note, "crimson moon and dying sun" is pretty close to what both would look like after an astroid impact: dust would obscure and "kill" the sun, and the moon would appear crimson. This is assuming the asteroid is not too large, in which case you see all of that, and then the atmosphere ignites and burns the planet.)

Yes, man wrote the entire Bible, and I do trust in much of it. The point I was trying to make is this: over the centuries, OTHER men have altered the Bible, and the end results are no longer entirely accurate. The very fact that removing or adding additional books to the Bible is considered a sin should very clearly illustrate the fact that the Bible was done, and no further tampering should be done to it. Since this tampering occured, I feel that the validity of those altered texts is weakened. We can trust Matt, Mark, Luke, and John, but we can no longer trust that the books these men wrote are unchanged and as they were meant to be. I'm afraid this even goes back to many of the much older versions (even the Greek and Hebrew) because quite a lot has happened to our poor book all these years: Roman persecution, Roman acceptance (I'm fairly sure things were changed when it was adopted by the romans, after all, many read the Bible in Latin now), the Crusades, the Inquisitions, Martin Luther, the Kings of Europe, etc. The biggest institution responsible for changes was of course the Church itself during these times, but it was the men in power within the church that changed it for their own agendas. I admire and respect that you would cut so much of the perversion out of your studies and go so far back as to read the Greek and Hebrew translations, but I find it very unlikely even these oldest of old versions are intact and unaltered. I would love nothing more than to see the actual Bible as it was when it was first scribed and assembled. What stories and passages will we never get to see or read?

I would love to read your personal translation/interpretation of Genisis and Revalations. Invalid_Mailibox@hotmail.com

For "day" vs "era"... As I am quite sure you are aware, the Old Testament was orally preserved for millenia, and then sometime around 1 BC it was actually written down in Hebrew and Aramaic. It was quite a while ago (years and years), so I don't have the source to site at this time, but in Aramaic the "day" vs "era" translation was fuzzy. I know that Genisis was not written in Aramaic, but as I said the Old Testament was orally spoken before this, and not written. It was spoken in several languages, one of which was Aramaic. It is entirely possible for someone to have passed the story of creation to someone else in Aramaic, and the new storyteller could have himself translated it to Hebrew and continued its telling in that language. Of course this is purely speculation, and I am not foolish enough to simply assume this is so, but as for keeping an open mind, I believe this is very plausible, and if it is true, can help explain one of the reasons why there is such a percieved gap between phyiscal science and religion. The fact that Hebraic poetry does not form in Genisis makes me feel as if perhaps it was originally told in Aramaic, or an even older language still, and perhaps lost some of its meaning when converted and written.

For Greek metaphors, yes, Greek is far less of an ambiguous language, but excluding Revalations as I explain above, I don't really have that many literal problems with the New Testament (originally written in Koine Greek was it?). The New Testament was assembled several centuries after it was written, so I guess you would have to have faith that everything meant to be in it was included at this earliest point... this isn't really that much of an issue for me. Much of it is recounting Jesus' life or quoting his sermons. And do you catch all the legal undertones? Incredible!

What are your feelings on "the Rapture"? Do you believe in it? Also, what views do you take on evolution and the Big Bang?

Sorry, mistype. Correct address is:
Invalid_Mailbox@hotmail.com

There is almost no doubt that John wrote Revelations. The style of his writing is apparent in Revelations.
According to revelations, we don't know whether or not it was a vision. John himself said he doesn't know.He said he still saw it, and, if the vision was not true, why would God tell John not to tell anybody about some of the things he showed him?
If something is going to happen and we can't help the outcome, and assuming that we do not need to know of it's happening, then why does he tell us that he will come? With that, almost the whole bible's structure is not coherent.

About the meteor/asteroid thing...well, I should've kept one of my old science textbooks that said something about that that I can't remember... Also, where is John's perspective here? Is he looking out of maybe a window in heaven? Is he seeing it from the earth perspective? And it is not only global destruction. It is the whole universe remodeled.The new heavens, and the new earth.

John knows what a rock is. John knows what big blowing up thing is.

Like what? They certainly haven't added any, and the ones that they removed (if that wasn't how it originally was), the Jews have, and those don't seem to add that much relevance.
The Hebrew Old testament was not really meddled with by the pope and others in that time of church history. The main problems then were by arians, and others. The pope did not edit the bible. He tried to overrule it. Martin Luther would not be debating with the pope and one of his archbishops, if the pope really edit the bible.
The idea of it being edit in such a way as you say does not correspond with much of the church history. And after all, the pope, and others, would nopt edit the septuagint or the Hebrew bible. The priests did know latin. They may have known Hebrew, but I don't think they knew Greek. In fact, I doubt they knew Hebrew.

The King James bible is the only English Bible I read. That goes back a while. That wasn't hurt by modern things. The Greek new testament was not infected by Roman people. They translated directly from the Greek. And, if the bible was edited as much as you say, what could we depend on?

Admittedly, some modern versions, like the TNIV (Today’s New International Version), CECIPCV (Contemporary English Children’s Illustrated Politically Correct Version), and to some extent, the NIV (New International Version).

To me, it sounds like you would be the type of person who WOULD change the bible. “This part of the bible is true, this isn’t…”

Not according to some scholars. It is in fact thought that Moses wrote Genesis and Exodus, Leviticus, (and possibly Deuteronomy). Key word: wrote. Moses was with the Hebrew eventually, no doubt he knew Hebrew.

The rapture? Um…I just know that Jesus will create a new heaven and knew Earth at the end of the world. When he does it, that’s one of the things I don’t know, and I don’t care, and I don’t take a stance on.

The big bang. I have a few problems with that because of the Genesis 1, but a lot of it, I have scientific problems with it. If you ever do anatomy, genetics, chemistry, and astronomy, you (or at least I do) feel that…how are dust particles supposed to create this?

"He said he still saw it, and, if the vision was not true, why would God tell John not to tell anybody about some of the things he showed him?"
The parts that were not to be shared are perhaps the pieces of information that are inevitable. To tell us of these things would either influence our decisions or simply depress us. But what about the rest?

"If something is going to happen and we can't help the outcome, and assuming that we do not need to know of it's happening, then why does he tell us that he will come?"
Telling us of the miracle of His coming is positive and inspires us to better action. Telling us of a doomed existance is only beneficial if we can change that future, because we have knowledge of that darker possibility. To tell of an inevitable doom depresses and discourages us... that would not be in our best interest. God wants what will help us, so that would not make sense.

"And it is not only global destruction. It is the whole universe remodeled."
With universal destruction, does it really matter what other planets we colonize? What other solar systems, even galaxies? Does Earth even still need to be around at that point? The End will come for everyone, everywhere. And as you put it, how do we know from what perspective John was witnessing the End? And is his to be the only valid perspective?

"And, if the bible was edited as much as you say, what could we depend on?"
Exactly. How can we take ALL of it as concrete and literal. That would be almost as bad as taking NONE of it as truth. No one could know the extent of any alterations or mutation. Though I don't think I worded it quite right before... I don't so much think that the Bible was intentionally changed TONS (maybe a little), I do think much of it was changed inadvertantly via translation, oral storytelling, even by the time the books themselves were being assembled. Have you ever played the game "Telephone"? We can compare different versions, different factions, etc to try and rebuild as close an approximation to the original works as we can, I am not trying to discredit the Bible, by any means. My point of view is a cautious and inquisitive one. I question not to disprove, but to discover what lies below the surface. The more I read the Bible, the more complex and subtle it seems. And the more I study science, the more I seem to notice connections between science and those subtleties, and the more amazing and miraculous creation seems.

"To me, it sounds like you would be the type of person who WOULD change the bible. “This part of the bible is true, this isn’t…” "
Like I said, I don't think it would be possible to determine exactly what is most accurate and what is not, and who am I to make such an absolute assessment as to say specifically "this is true" or "this is false". Challange everything, but with an open mind. Question to learn, not to invalidate. I believe this behavior is actually encouraged anyway.

Ugh... don't even get me started on CECIPCV.

"Not according to some scholars. It is in fact thought that Moses wrote Genesis and Exodus, Leviticus, (and possibly Deuteronomy). Key word: wrote."
Also according to many scholars, it was orally passed. I suppose we will have to declare a stalemate on this point, as sources seem to confict. It is also suspected that God told Moses Genesis and Exodus directly when Moses climbed the mountain to receive the Commandments, and that Moses then preceeded to tell others what was told to him. I still believe it likely that, even if he DID "write" it (not many literate people at that point, and publication was an expensive and time-consuming task), it would still have been mainly spread via word-of-mouth, but admitedly this is speculation on my part.

"The big bang. I have a few problems with that because of the Genesis 1, but a lot of it, I have scientific problems with it. If you ever do anatomy, genetics, chemistry, and astronomy, you (or at least I do) feel that…how are dust particles supposed to create this? "
From a Biblical standpoint, you don't have to have a problem with the Big Bang so long as Genesis is interpreted to mean that "the first day" took longer than 24 human-conceived Earth-hours. (Or was it in God-days?) What were the conflictions you feel arise from Genesis?
From a scientific standpoint, I'm not quite sure what you mean. There were no dust particles... Rather a kind of quantum soup - building blocks of energy and protomatter that would later form protons, electrons, and other primative particles, which in turn formed atoms, molecules, etc. And the Big Bang was not an explosion of matter and mass. It was the very boundries of the universe iteslf first exploding into existance from true nothingness, and then expanding outward infinitely at unfathomable rates. Let there be light! *BOOM* But if you really have such a problem accepting the idea that life formed from dust... "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." I was looking through scripture years back looking for events in which it was reported that God Himself actually spoke (I don't mean like the burning bush, or to Adam, or the mountaintop, or other such places, those could have been archangels speaking FOR God), and as far as I could find, Genesis is the only example. "Let there be light!" This is profound I think, because the voice of God holds the key to creation itself. If what we understand in our simple little languages as "Let there be light" has a higher meaning when spoken in God's own tongue, this first (and as far as I know only, please correct me if you've spotted another occurance) utterance could have been what many chemists and physicists refer to as "the Ultimate Equation" - the mathematical equation that can describe and predict the behavior, location, and action of every energy and particle in the entire universe for all time. Genesis via physical law. Perfectly planned, flawless, and unbreakable: the laws of math and physics.

Sometimes it really seems like science and religion are trying to describe the same things, but in different languages: string theory describes all matter and energy as a composition of countless multi-dimensional strings, which are basically nothingness that vibrates in 11 dimensions. Like air vibrating after we speak, did the universe vibrate when God spoke? Carbon, with the presence of water and Hydrogen, forms complex chemical chains that have the natural tendancy to SELF REPLICATE. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground..." This was essential for life to have begun, and then evolved. Even the order in which God created the animals in the openning lines of Genesis is the same order in which lifeforms evolved. The "flaming sword" that sealed the gates of Eden may describe a flaming meteor crashing to Earth, which we are pretty sure has happened multiple times in the past, possibly kicking off the Ice Age (certainly would seem like Eden lost at that point). The serpent, who was struck down by God, whose legs and arms shrivelled and who was made to crawl on its belly for the rest of existance... sounds an awful lot like the evolutionary development of a snake. Finally, God always keeps his word, and always upholds his own laws. We know that there are certain things about the nature of the universe that are absolute. Much of math and physics are based on these things. Assuming you are Christian (which you and I obviously are), who do you think created these sciences, these laws? If God crafted these rules for the universe to follow, why would he NOT use them to manifest His will? The Big Bang, with all protomatter in just the right position to (predictably to God) react perfectly to form the galaxy, the Earth, and eventually life on it. Then, via quantum and entropic influence, carefully guide and direct that life as it evolved into all of the different lifeforms, eventually Man. The parting of the Red Sea is now thought to be something that regularly almost happens on its own as the tides change, strong winds gust, and sand bars form and deform. This miracle would have only take the slightest bit of God's influence to occur in a manner similar to what is described in the Bible.

Science seems a lot like discovering more about how God has done things. Does it discredit the Bible? Does it really make God seem more mundane? If anything, I say quite the opposite! It seems trivial that with some "magic power" or some such thing God could simply have snapped his finger and, like Q, forced his will upon the unsuspecting and unwilling universe. But to plan, and orchestrate, and direct things to happen through entirely natural processes... almost seemingly as if an independant process; that is art. That is truely amazing and awe-inspiring.

As far as Genesis is concerned (Quoted from King James Version):
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
001:005 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
001:006 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
001:007 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
001:008 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
001:009 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
001:010 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
001:011 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
[Plant life first large-scale complex organism: 3rd Day]
001:012 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
001:013 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
001:014 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
001:015 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
001:016 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
001:017 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
001:018 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
001:019 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
001:020 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
[Oceanic life, followed by airborne life: 5th Day]
001:021 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
001:022 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
001:023 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
001:024 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
[Land mammals and other land-dwelling creatures: 6th Day, before Man]
001:025 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
[Man: 6th day, final creation. Both male... and female]
001:027 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
001:028 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
001:029 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
001:030 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
001:031 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
002:005 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
002:006 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
002:007 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
[Here Man is created even before the plants]
002:008 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
002:009 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
[And plants are created after Man]
002:010 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
...
002:018 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
002:019 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
[All animal life is now created after man...]
002:020 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
002:021 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
002:022 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
002:023 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
[And female Man is created last]
...
004:001 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD."
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
One of the reasons I have difficulty accepting everything here as literal: if you do that, it contradicts itself immediately with the order of creation. Also, what exactly does it mean Adam "knew" his wife? Clearly it was referring to intercourse. It uses innuendo! Something that is not meant to be taken literally! Why do we have to take everything else as literal? Don't misunderstand my scrutiny of these details as asserting any of this as "true" or "false". The first ordering may be literally wrong and the second right, or visa versa... or perhaps both are correct, but not in a literal sense. But clearly SOMETHING is amiss if taken as-is.

For that reason, I don't see how anything said herein could make you doubt or disbelieve something like the Big Bang. It isn't like the Big Bang makes the whole Bible wrong. And even if it contradicted a literal interpretation of Genesis (something which Genesis itself seems to do), it is EASILY integrated into a non-literal interpretation of it.

That would be vain depression...
Everything in the bible is inevitable, from god's promise to noah that he will never flood the earth again, to the message(s) in the Gospel!

"Telling us of the miracle of His coming is positive and inspires us to better action. Telling us of a doomed existance is only beneficial if we can change that future, because we have knowledge of that darker possibility. To tell of an inevitable doom depresses and discourages us..."
Then why Did god tell solomon that his kingdom would break? Why did God tell other biblical people of their doom? Why is it that He does tell us of the destruction he plans for earth? That's not exactly depressing even, the earth is extremely sinful, and it'd be kinda nice to be in heaven and on a new earth and all that...

[/b]With universal destruction, does it really matter what other planets we colonize? What other solar systems, even galaxies?[/b]
That's not my point.
My point is: how the Bill Gates is an asteroid hitting the earth supposed to destroy the universe?

How can we take ALL of it as concrete and literal. That would be almost as bad as taking NONE of it as truth. No one could know the extent of any alterations or mutation.
I take it all concrete. Not all necessarily literal. Yes, I've played the game telephone. If it was indeed passed down through so many generations, tell me something: have you ever heard Irish storytelling? Somebody first tells thereal story. Then somebody, when telling somebody else, intentionally makes a minor change, and when you hear the newest version of it, about 30 years later, it's totally warped and different. In this case, apparently it's inadverdent.Then how are these subteties passed? How is the bible so abundant--so stable?

Ugh... don't even get me started on CECIPCV.
To tell the truth, it's not called the CECIPCV. I just call it that. It's just called the Contemporary English version...and it has illustrations for children...and it's also politically correct.

Also according to many scholars, it was orally passed. I suppose we will have to declare a stalemate on this point, as sources seem to confict
Eh. I know that the Psalms were written, at least.

I admit it might not be 24, it being before the flood. It might be 23 hour, or 29 hour!

The big bang seems to be another explanation of "science" into the bible. With that, there could be hundred/thousands of ways god could have created. Why is the big bang the one you hold to? God dcould have lots of plastic and melted it and somehow through alchemy create things...or make a time/space dimension block of kakaa and de-odarized it and form it into seas, and make it produce light and darkness, and blah blah blah.I realize that those are kinda un-scientific, but I'm sure if you thought for a while, you could think of thousands more explanations for the creation of the world. Why would you be so devout with the Big Bang one?

GAH! WHOAH! Whoah there.

First of all, you said, "both male--and female" I believe Adam was created first. For all we know, Eve could be created two weeks later, or long enough for adam to become lonely.

In 2:05, there are plants. Then Adam gets a soul. Adam may have been like an animal before this point, but now he either became alive, or got a soul.

God planted a garden. That there WAS NOT THE CREATION OF PLANTS.
The sixth day is not the end of his work. God still watches us...

"God had formed every beast of the field" Yes, hie did, in Genesis 1, and now he brings them to adam. Then, in the garden, Eve is created.

Think of the time the King James was written...the 1600's right? Perhaps then the word know was a bit broader in meaning.

"Then why Did god tell solomon that his kingdom would break? Why did God tell other biblical people of their doom? Why is it that He does tell us of the destruction he plans for earth? That's not exactly depressing even, the earth is extremely sinful, and it'd be kinda nice to be in heaven and on a new earth and all that..."
A good point. Perhaps I should re-word. The End is an inevitebility, yes. But the WHEN and the HOW may not be. Recall when God looked upon the early Earth and saw that it was corrupt, that even the earth and soil were tainted. He planned then to destroy it all, and every living creature on it... until He saw Noah. Then He changed his plans, so that not quite ALL of the world would perish. It was because Noah was pure, and reminded God that good was still surviving here. If there are enough of us that strive to follow His teachings, perhaps we can remind God of the good that is still here. Perhaps he will wait a bit longer to execute the rebirth of all things. That's what I was trying to get at before, I think. Showing us the doom of our future could serve as a threat to the wicked, a promise to the devout, and a warning to the wavering. But He never promised a "when".

"My point is: how the Bill Gates is an asteroid hitting the earth supposed to destroy the universe?"
Hehe, nice. Who knows HOW He will destroy the universe. The astroid may come far far before that happens. Maybe not. It could occur AS the universe is being reformed. That could simply be the way He plans to destroy the Earth. Not all of existance. Maybe there will be other simultaneous cataclysms occuring elsewhere.

"I take it all concrete. Not all necessarily literal."
This is contrary to your previous statement, but it is good to hear. Please define "concrete". I may have a concrete view of the Bible as well, depending on your intended meaning.

"Then somebody, when telling somebody else, intentionally makes a minor change, and when you hear the newest version of it, about 30 years later, it's totally warped and different. In this case, apparently it's inadverdent.Then how are these subteties passed? How is the bible so abundant--so stable?"
The difference between the storytelling game and telephone is this: the changes in telephone are completely unintentional (unless there is a mischievious player). Even with all honest playeres, in a room of 15-20 people, the message, even just a sentence, usually comes out totally mangled after just 1 full pass. This could absolutely have happened over generations of oral storytelling of the earliest biblical entries. The reason the current version is so stable and abundant is this: at some point in the 5th century (400's AD), a committee formed, collected as much written verse as they could find and as many oral versions as they could locate and decided on what would be WRITTEN in the New Testement. This same thing was done for the Old Testement sometime around 1 BC. This is like playing telephone with 50 people, then instead of normally passing the message around, you stop at the 40th person and have them WRITE DOWN what they think the message is, then pass their note instead for the rest of the game. With the Bible, this possibly skewed some of the finer details. I believe the core messages are still intact, but what I question is the details. The specifics. This doesn't mean what is written isn't valid, it just may mean that some things may no longer be literally valid.

"To tell the truth, it's not called the CECIPCV. I just call it that."
I couldn't remember what it was really called, so I just went with your abreviation. It's a good one! I heard about it when it first came out, and it made me sick. First of all, I HATE all things "Politcally Correct"... what a useless mangling of free speech and the English language. Second of all, they change details in the Bible in order to make it "less offensive"!?!?! What the hell? We don't know WHICH details are literally correct, so changing ANYTHING is detrimental... but to change anything in there is forbidden anyway!

"I admit it might not be 24, it being before the flood. It might be 23 hour, or 29 hour!"
Genesis 2:4 -
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"
What do you believe is meant by "generations"? This line can seem vague, as it describes both a long period of time, AND a single day for the creation of all things. "Generations" is used more times in Genesis, and the way it is used suggests "times during which this occurred", such as Genesis 6:9 -
"These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

"Why would you be so devout with the Big Bang one?"
I never explicitely said it was fact, did I? My appologies if I did. It is a scientific theory, but it is the most likely of all current theories. The evidence used to support it mainly comes from the results of observed collisions and reactions in particle accellerators, which reveal much about the true nature of matter. Also, the Doppler Shift that we can see when observing the heavens as well as positions and migrations of celestial bodies have taught us much about the nature of space and the universe. One very important thing we have determined: It is expanding. Assuming it has always done so (which they have a fairly good idea of based on long range observations), at some point, it was comprehendibly small... and before that infinitely small. At some point, from a scientific stand-point, we know that the universe didn't even exist. That is why it is so likely the Big Bang occurred. To tell you the truth, though, I'd be lying if I didn't tell you that I might doubt it a lot more if it didn't fit so well with a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis. Granted other theories may mesh just as well, but they have a lot less of a base in science, and seem less phsyically possible. Who knows, maybe some day when our technology increases again we'll formulate an even better theory, but for the time being, the Big Bang looks good.

"In 2:05, there are plants. Then Adam gets a soul. Adam may have been like an animal before this point, but now he either became alive, or got a soul."
That's a rather interesting interpretation. One I've not considered before. I like it... and it does tend to agree with evolution. If we DID evolve from lower life forms, then this could be describing the first Homo Sapien to emerge, be granted a soul, or free will, or whatever, and find God. Being lonely, others could have followed shortly thereafter, genetically promoted by God. This is exactly what I mean by "details", and why I think a non-literal interpretation should always at least be considered when you study these things.

"The sixth day is not the end of his work. God still watches us..."
God ALWAYS watches us. I am sure He was watching even on the dawn of the 7th day. Does "on the seventh day God rested" mean he did nothing on that day? Or does it simply mean the 6th day was the last day God CREATED anything? And if these days are meant to be interpreted as periods of time, we may still be IN the 7th day. Perhaps the 8th day is when God stops resting and destroys the universe in order to remake it.

""God had formed every beast of the field" Yes, hie did, in Genesis 1, and now he brings them to adam. Then, in the garden, Eve is created."
Genesis 1:27 -
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Genesis 2:22 -
"And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."
Even if you interpret this the way you have, there is still a contradiction. You cannot read Genesis 1 as strictly BEFORE Genesis 2. (It doesn't make sense if viewed linearly from Genesis 1 to 2, temporally) If that were the case, God would have already created Eve by the time he created her AGAIN in the garden. Instead, you could possibly view Genesis 1 as the broad overview of creation, and then Genesis 2 as getting more specific and detailed about those same events, but when you get so specific, not all the ordering seems to match up. Perhaps this is not quite a literal progression as we might read into it? Genesis 2 may be describing something much broader.

"Think of the time the King James was written...the 1600's right? Perhaps then the word know was a bit broader in meaning."
This is a prime example of what I was referring to with translation and how tricky things can get when a word can have more than one meaning. How many meanings did the Hebrew and Aramaic words hold during the times these books were scribed? Could they possible be different than what we think today? Perhaps hold MORE meanings than we think today? Fuzzy details...

The bible (The Jesus/Non Jesus one depending on if your of Jewish faith or not) Is a mix of true events fictional writtings and darn right altering to change its meaning. I beleive in God but what I believe is far far different then I have seen written in any book, and I have studied almost all the relegions on this planet.

There indeed was a big bang and the universe will end one day either from heat death or collapse or simple evaperation... I think everyone has to find there own meaning in life and it would be best if they also found there own path to God as well (or Gods if you feel the need for more then one lol) All religions are a good thing except when some one becomes so fanatical that they feel everyone else must beleive as they do. A fanatic of anything is a dangerous and most of the time ignorant individial (Ignorance becouse if you believe in something so strongly then if it is proven wronge the truely fanatical will refuse to see the truth)

Assume there is a begining, assume there is an end, or an ever repeating cycle of life, whatever. I'd just like to see the container

"A good point. Perhaps I should re-word. The End is an inevitebility, yes. But the WHEN and the HOW may not be."

God didn't change his plans. God forordained Noah. He did destroy the wold, he left Noah's covenant out of it. Give me one instance in the bible where God said he did not intend to sane anything/anbody.

I never said he said a when.
I'm not one of those "88 reason why jesus will come in '88" freaks.

"Hehe, nice. Who knows HOW He will destroy the universe. The astroid may come far far before that happens. Maybe not. It could occur AS the universe is being reformed. That could simply be the way He plans to destroy the Earth. Not all of existance. Maybe there will be other simultaneous cataclysms occuring elsewhere."

Oh. Okay.
Then, what do you need to move to mars for if an asteroid hits the earth?

That would do a whole lot of good...
I don't know how he's going to get the earth.
I don't intend to foretell that.

"This is contrary to your previous statement, but it is good to hear. Please define "concrete". I may have a concrete view of the Bible as well, depending on your intended meaning."

Noo...
Remember...I realize Jesus spoke in metaphore, the New Testament Greek can underline that by it's form.
I think everything in the bible is literal if it is the form of literal-ness (not a word, I know) in the original language.
That's why I believe in the literal day in Genesis. It is not hebraic poetry, like Psalm 119 (or is it 117?). It has no lingustic metaphorical form, in any way or shape. It may be ambigious, yes, but not metaphorical.

I define the Bible as concrete meaning, as Robert E. Lee said, "I accept the bible as the infallable word of God, though I may not understand all of it it, I do not take it at all as false."

" I believe the core messages are still intact, but what I question is the details. The specifics. "
Heretic! He...just kidding...but seriously though...

I challenge you, try to come up with different details for the bible, that fit it so well. Can't do it, eh?
If they could do that, they were supernatural geniuses. The bible is abundant in its form. Nothing...nothing can alter it's shape from it's true form and make it fit with the core message.

If the Old Testament was written before 1 BC , why do you need to play telephone, anyways?

""These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"
What do you believe is meant by "generations"? This line can seem vague, as it describes both a long period of time, AND a single day for the creation of all things. "Generations" is used more times in Genesis, and the way it is used suggests "times during which this occurred", such as Genesis 6:9 -
"These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.""

Generations, N Pl, Antq: The main parts of the story that have occured.
You need to take the context. In Matthew 1, those are genrations you think of, normally. The Noah thing is what they used to thing of generations as, normally.

Language confusion/barrier, eh?

Since you can see that this word can mean a 1 day, three day, two hour thing, or whatever time the main points of the story take, what's your point?

"Even if you interpret this the way you have, there is still a contradiction. You cannot read Genesis 1 as strictly BEFORE Genesis 2. (It doesn't make sense if viewed linearly from Genesis 1 to 2, temporally) If that were the case, God would have already created Eve by the time he created her AGAIN in the garden. Instead, you could possibly view Genesis 1 as the broad overview of creation, and then Genesis 2 as getting more specific and detailed about those same events, but when you get so specific, not all the ordering seems to match up. Perhaps this is not quite a literal progression as we might read into it? Genesis 2 may be describing something much broader"

Yes, it's going into somehting broader. IS it desbribing the same thing? No, it's talking about the garden and the events which happen, what Adam does to not get lonely, and so on, it is partially literal progression. I'm not sure what you find is exactly contradictory.


"Who knows, maybe some day when our technology increases again we'll formulate an even better theory, but for the time being, the Big Bang looks good"
Yeah. Sure. Okay.
Whenever I hear the big bang theory, in a christian enviroment, it seems to be an attempt to put modern "science" into the bible. Whenever I see it in an atheist enviroment...heck, it seems be unscientific with the way the things happened. I always laugh at how the moon coalesces. So funny.


"That's a rather interesting interpretation. One I've not considered before. I like it... and it does tend to agree with evolution. If we DID evolve from lower life forms, then this could be describing the first Homo Sapien to emerge, be granted a soul, or free will, or whatever, and find God. Being lonely, others could have followed shortly thereafter, genetically promoted by God. This is exactly what I mean by "details", and why I think a non-literal interpretation should always at least be considered when you study these things."
Oh, that's a literal interpretation, all right. At least what I call a literal interpretation. It's just one I don't quite accept.

GAh!!! kill me now. The never ending circle of rightous intolerance, is, um, neverending. Common sense existed long before humans started creating higher/lower excuses for bad behaviour, or to control/destroy those they disagreed with. I find it hard to fathom that (granted, be it true) 250,000+yrs of development could have happened with a fraction the carp that exists now, we simply would not exist now. My opinion, not a flame xan.or invalid As for the religious diatrab...........pthththththbllllleeeegah! Poop.

I'm not sure I understand what you just said.

Clarification:
I myself do not believe in 250,000 years of earth existing.
I think earth has been around maybe 6,000-15,000 years.
I do not believe in evolution or old earth.

What are you trying to say?

Stop this ridiculous pissing contest. A primarily two-person thread is better taken up in private messages; at least there it won't waste quite as much bandwidth.

No doubt.

Observation:
1-You didn't pay attention in school did ya?
2-I got tools older than that, lol, sheesh
3-That explains your statement after quote.

Study.



And oh, handikap, yup lol.

1. In my school evolution was not taught. I never went to public school (thank goodness)
2. Okay. I won't use "religious diatrab" with my defense for this. How did you date it? Carbon 14 is the most reliable dating system. The other dating systems have been observed to be completely unreliable. A hawaain rock,observed to be five years since formed was dated to be 5 billion tears old. Carbon 14 itself is no longer reliable when the dating goes more than 6,000 years.
The semi-reliable dating systems, related to stellular movement, are the ones that date things about 9-10 K years. No more than that. Other dating systems just do not work well.
3. Okay. Whatever.

Study.

What about a "handikap"?You make no sense.

Handiklap, as in he was agreeing with what I said about not wasting bandwidth with threads aimed directly at other users, such as this thread.

BTW, the carbon-14 dating method is used for dating organic, once-living matter, not rocks. Apparently even the most basic of earth-science principles is stricken from your education system. Kudos.

Here, read this article for a Christian perspective on Radiometric Dating, published in the ASA (of which you should be aware), which actually claims exactly the opposite of what you have proposed. What sources are you referencing? It would seem that practically the entire scientific community, including the ASA, believes all of the methods outlined in that paper to be fairly accurate, as well as relatively homogenous, in their findings.

Guys this thread could easily go horribly wrong so please be careful not make direct attacks at specific opinions and try to keep it as a conversation, else we are going to have to lock it.

Thanks