Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: Evolution or Creation Science?
Source:
Orthodox Church in America
URL Source: https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-law ... /evolution-or-creation-science
Published: May 30, 2012
Author: Fr. Lawrence Farley
Post Date: 2018-02-14 09:59:32 by A Pole
Keywords: orthodox, creation, evolution
Views: 24560
Comments: 211
In my years as a priest and of sharing the Gospel, I have heard many reasons offered for not becoming a Christian: scandals associated with clergy, the wealth of the Church, the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. etc. I thought I had more or less heard it all, and so was unprepared for a reason one young man offered to justify his rejection of Orthodoxy—namely, that dinosaurs were not in the Bible. I blinked a few times, and was left temporarily speechless (something of a rarity with me, to which those who know me well can attest). His idea was that since dinosaurs obviously existed (their skeletons adorn our museums), then if the Bible was God’s Word, he should be able to read about dinosaurs in the Bible. Since he could not find them there (I refrained from mentioning certain fundamentalist interpretations of Leviathan and Behemoth in the Book of Job), then obviously the Bible could not be God’s Word and he could not remain Orthodox. He was referring of course to the old supposed conflict between Science and Religion, and in this arm-wrestling match, it was clear to him that Science had won. No Biblical dinosaurs, no more church-going. So, what’s the deal about dinosaurs? Why aren’t they in the creation stories in Genesis? Apart from the absurdity of supposing they’re not there because they aren’t mentioned by name (the duck-billed platypus isn’t mentioned by name either), it’s a valid question, and one that leads us headlong into the question of how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. Interpretation of the creation stories too often degenerates into an argument between the theory of evolution vs. what is sometimes called “creation science”. By “evolution” the average non-scientific person means the notion that Man descended from the apes, or from a common ancestor of apes and men. The name “Darwin” is usually thrown about, regardless of how the ideas in his On the Origin of Species have fared in the scientific community since Darwin wrote it in 1859, and most people’s knowledge of evolution is confined to looking at the famous evolutionary chart in National Geographic, showing how smaller hominids kept walking until they became human beings like us. By “creation science” is meant the view that the Genesis stories are to be taken as scientifically or historically factual, so that the earth (often considered to be comparatively young) was created by God in six twenty-four hour days. Since the time of the “Scopes monkey trial”, the argument between “evolutionists” and “creationists” has been going strong, and is often fought in the nation’s courts and departments of education. Arm-wrestling indeed. Happily for people with weak arms like myself, the Church does not call us to take part in this arm-wrestling match. The creation stories in Genesis were not written, I suggest, to give us a blow-by-blow account of how we got here. Rather, they were written to reveal something fundamental about the God of Israel and the privileged status of the people who worshipped Him. We assume today that the ancients wanted to know how we got here, and how we were created. In fact, they were mostly uninterested in such cosmic questions, and the creation myths that existed in the ancient near east spoke to other issues. Most people back then, if they thought of the question of cosmic origins at all, assumed that the world had always existed, and the various gods they worshipped were simply part of that eternal backdrop. That is where the creation stories were truly revolutionary. Their main point was not merely that God created the world; it was that the tribal God of the Jewish people was sovereign over the world. We take monotheism for granted, and spell “god” with a capital “G”. For us, God is singular and unique by definition. It was otherwise in the ancient near east. That age was populated by different gods, each with his or her own power, agenda, and career. And this is the point: in the Genesis stories, none of these gods are there. In the opening verses we read, “In the beginning God (Hebrew Elohim, a Jewish name for their God) created the heavens and the earth” and “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made earth and heaven.” The creating deity is called “Elohim” and “Yahweh”—the names for the Jewish God. Other rival deities are simply not there. It is as if they do not exist. They had been dethroned and demoted by their omission from the story. The opening verse of Genesis is a salvo fired into the world of polytheism, a ringing declaration that their gods were nobodies. We keep reading and discover that this Jewish God made everything that existed by His simple word of command. He simply said, “Light—exist!” (two words in the original Hebrew), and light sprang into existence. In the creation myths of the pagan cultures of that time, the gods created by lots of huffing and puffing (in an Old Babylonian myth, the god Enlil uses a hoe), but not so the God of the Jews. He is above all that. For Him, a simple sovereign word suffices. In fact, in the first chapter of Genesis, all the cosmos was brought into being by Him uttering ten simple commands (yep, it does foreshadow the Ten Commandments, given later). And Man is portrayed in these stories as the sum and crown of creation, giving the human person a dignity never before known. Man is said to have been made “in the image of God”—a revolutionary statement, since in those days, only kings were thought to be in the divine image. Despite this, Genesis invests the common man with this royal dignity. And even more: it says that woman shares this image and rule with him. In the ancient near east, women were chattel; in Genesis, she is a co-ruler of creation with the man. The stories of Genesis cannot be read apart from their original cultural context, and when we read them as they were meant to be read, we see that the creation story was a gauntlet thrown down before the prevailing culture of its time. The creation stories affirmed that the Jewish God, the tribal deity of a small and internationally unimportant people, alone made the whole cosmos. That meant that He was able to protect His People. It meant that, properly speaking, all the pagan nations should abandon their old gods and worship Him. These stories affirm that the Jewish God is powerful enough to have created everything by a few simple orders. They affirm that Man is not the mere tool and slave of the gods, whose job it is to feed the deities and care for their temples. Rather, Man is a co-ruler with God, His own image and viceroy on earth. And Woman is not a thing to be sold, inferior to Man. Rather, she shares Man’s calling and dignity. These are the real lessons of Genesis. It has nothing to say, for or against, the theory of evolution. Its true lessons are located elsewhere. So what about dinosaurs? I happily leave them in the museums, to the makers of movies (I love “Jurassic Park”), and the writers of National Geographic. The creation stories of Genesis give me lots to ponder and to live up to without multiplying mysteries. As Mark Twain once said, “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me; it’s the parts I do understand.” 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 189.
#4. To: A Pole (#0)
This is a thoughtful, candid write-up on the issue that is indeed very much in line with the sentiments of many, though not all, Christians. Namely that it doesn't matter how we got here, but that God is real regardless of the method. That is certainly my own sentiment. For that reason, I'm a bit surprised to see you post it Stone. It in no way makes any case for Creationism over Evolution.
It doesn't matter to you because you're not a Christian. It does matter though. Very much. Also if Genesis is false there is no reason for Jesus to come and save us. If it doesn't matter why do biased scientists try to prove something that happened in the past by making stuff up with their fervid imagination? Have a good day sir. I might add that I respect you as a person and a poster. You handle yourself well and are always courteous and kind. Unlike me sometimes.
Indeed. Nail hit on the head. There is an ENTIRE movement of Rebellion/Bogus Revolution-Evolution/Conspiracy to dismiss, disregard, or otherwise discredit Genesis as a "Fairy Tale". Genesis is directly hinged to Jesus Christ, His Deity (as God-in-the-Flesh), Adam's/man's original sin...and God's Plan of Redemption through the death of a sin-less Jesus. It's both a simple but convoluted if one can't wrap their head around Genesis as truth and the idea that Adam): a) Was CREATED BY GOD, sinless (all men as a result are revealed as "sinners.") It is obvious that Believers should take Jesus at His word -- that no one will come into the Presence of the Father but by through belief in the Son, of His Blood and Redemption...
Some people, in a Christian context, take Genesis not as a complete fabrication per se, but as something that, while not literally true, is still metaphorically true. For example, the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil being representative of a time when evolving man became aware of the concept of morality concerning the well being of his fellow man. While you certainly disagree, others who have no less claim to being Christian would nonetheless defend their understanding/perception on this point.
Yes, your characterization is valid. "Some" people, true. Still many others disregard it as a "Fairy Tale." Within those ranks, "Believers." That said, Genesis isn't intended to be a metaphor, but literal. God created by merely speaking the Word. For example, the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil being representative of a time when evolving man became aware of the concept of morality concerning the well being of his fellow man. True. Yes, this was indeed the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. But in this case it was specifically Adam AND Eve partaking. The two of them were the first of God's human creatures to "become aware of the concept of morality" -- but more than that, they'd become aware of committing their first sin. Disobeying God led to THAT mortality as God had implicitly warned them not to eat the fruit, "Or you shall surely die." The rest of mankind obviously followed suit, leading to the necessity of Redemption and Redeemer. The "First Death" die has already been cast; It's the SECOND (and Final Life/Death) that we must concern ourselves with and be absolutely certain about resolving.
Genesis is a mystical book with hidden meaning visible to the elect
I respectfully disagree; It is clear as day. The only things "mysterious" are the details. It is stated that there WILL be "mysteries," i.e, things mankind will never know, or not intended to know (either because they are un-important OR because they possibly detract or distract from what is actually important: THE GOSPEL.) The meat of the matter -- what God wants ALL to "see" and understand is what is transparent.
Your comment is silly, Liberator. Genesis did not predict Christ's GOSPEL.
You aren't understanding the context of my post, Buck.
Genesis was only written about 1000 BCE. It was written after the Babylon expulsion of the Jews. You will never find a record that suggests "Genesis" was written before.
Probably not the final version. However, the records that were preserved were definitely written before that. They didn't exactly have word processors or even printing presses in Moses' time.
Back your statement with facts based on scientific research and discovery. You will never see an authentic Biblical record more recent than 1000 BCE. Why? Because there aren't any. The Jews acquired their writing skills by the Babylonians, it was cultural tradition within that empire to write. There are records going back before even 1000 BCE, but for the Jews, there is nothing. Why? They were nomadic in nature before the Babylonians taught them otherwise.
You will never see an authentic Biblical record more recent than 1000 BCE. Why? Because there aren't any. The Jews acquired their writing skills by the Babylonians, it was cultural tradition within that empire to write. There are records going back before even 1000 BCE, but for the Jews, there is nothing. So are you telling us that Hebrews, Jews, or their ancestors would not nor could not have learned ANOTHER or different language and written history?
They were pretty much at war between themselves and others such as Syria and Mesopotamia to perform anything constructive other than goat herding before 1000 BCE. Once the Babylonians crushed them, and educated them to the maximum extent possible, they were expelled and created the foundations for the Torah. Of course, the information was taken from the Oral Torah which was briefly mentioned, although not identified. With a little social structure by the Babylonians, the Hebrews stepped away from just being goat herders. Pretty remarkable!
Why? Because there aren't any. The Jews acquired their writing skills by the Babylonians... Moses lived in the 1400s BC. Are you claiming any events that occurred BEFORE 1400-1000 BC and been documented/validated by Moses (yes, like Genesis) and the Prophets CAN'T be true or factual?
According to the Old Testament, he lived for what ... one thousand years? That is quite a lifespan, don't you think? But with a range of one thousand years, why have you limited him to just 1400 BCE?
But with a range of one thousand years, why have you limited him to just 1400 BCE? Not nearly one thousand years (According to Deuteronomy 34:7, Moses died at age 120 -- still pretty long, eh?), but yes, the ancients did exceed our current life span by quite a bit. Hundreds of years. Especially Pre-Flood man. Scripture tells us Moses was 40 when as an Eygptian struck the slave: (Acts 7:22-29)... According to Exodus 7:7, Moses was 80 years old when he made his demands to Pharaoh. Quite a resume, don't you think? The Pre-Flood people as well as ALL life on earth -- possessed DNA that evaded eventual damage of the post-Flood planet when all life got smaller, weaker, and died much sooner. Many species as you well know went extinct. According to Genesis, man routinely live to between 400-900 years. We can tell by the fossil record and bones embedded within the rock strata that very LARGE and different flora and fauna were completely wiped out, became extinct during the world wide cataclysim or the Ice Age, never to return after the Great Flood. But with a range of one thousand years, why have you limited him to just 1400 BCE? That's the approximate documented date at which Moses writings are said to have been transcribed.
The contents of the Old Testament are largely fictional about anyone's longevity. Why? These folks lived a difficult life (day to day struggle actually) with little nourishing food or adequate health care. So of course they placed their trust in a God, or hope in a God or faith from day to day in a God. Thy had little recourse but to make up faerie tales of all sorts about themselves or the world around themselves. Take Joseph and Sarah as an example. Sarah gave birth to a baby @90 years old! Do you believe that?
Are you referring to the Pre-Flood days? Or the post-Flood from Abraham till Moses... and beyond? There are at least three different eras to reference. The Planet was far different Pre-Flood. So of course they placed their trust in a God, or hope in a God or faith from day to day in a God. Thy had little recourse but to make up faerie tales of all sorts about themselves or the world around themselves. Your lens is seeing things and people through recent eyes and logic. I get it. But you need to examine history fat more than a cursory look that you give it. The more and closer you examine things, the more fascinating and logical it all becomes. You might surprise yourself. Take Joseph and Sarah as an example. Sarah gave birth to a baby @90 years old! Do you believe that? You mean Abraham and Sarah? Yes, of course. In your defense even Sarah doubt God's promise to give birth at her age. considering it through contemporary eyes -- of course its impossible. One factor to consider -- the genetics and DNA at Abraham/Sarah's time wasn't quite as damaged as it would eventually become. Here is a fascinating Chart that illustrates the Great Flood's affect on an increasingly reduce age-span on various Biblical Patriarchs as the quality of genetics devolve over generations. There are further notes on aging below: Biblical Patriarch Age when first son born Age at death Biblical Patriarch Age when first son born Age at death In his book about the history of the Jews, the first century historian Josephus stated the following regarding the advanced ages of the pre-flood patriarchs. "But let no one, upon comparing the lives of the ancients with our lives, and with the few years which we now live, think that what we have said of them is false . . . " (Antiquities (History) of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 3). Josephus also states that the reason for the very long lifespans of the pre-flood people was that God decided to be merciful to them and that the food they ate was much better for their bodies than the food eaten post-deluge. The average life span before the flood (ten generations) was 857 years. After the flood, however, the average life span (for the ten generations from Shem to Abraham) was only 317 years! In 2008, the average life expectancy of a person living in the United States was 78 years. The word Patriarch is applied in the New Testament to Abraham (Hebrews 7:4), to the sons of Jacob (Acts 7:8 - 9), and to David (Acts 2:29). Adam lived long enough to see EIGHT generations of his family born! Adam died when his great, great, great, great, great, great grandson Lamech was 46 years old! The Biblical patriarch Abraham had eight children through three women. Abraham's son Isaac lived 180 years, longer than he did (175 years) or Isaac's son Jacob (147 years). Abraham's wife Sarah holds the distinction of being the ONLY woman in the entire Bible where her age at death is recorded. http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/large-chart-life-span-patriarchs-from-adam-to-noah.html
All contained in "Genesis." And to answer your question, yes, and beyond. What was the day to day life of People all about during those times when there wasn't any free food or health care or mass production of a plentiful bounty as in contemporary times? Miracles handed down by God? In a sense, yes as these faerie tales gave hope to those dealing with the day to day struggle of life. Of course, they believed in a God. Why? To promote their lives as there was no other way for "hope" in the future. There is nothing more important to men and woman to believe in something, often anything, when challenged under forces of great oppression whether man-made or any other natural causes. Do you think the issues of day to day living was confined to just the Hebrews creating myths over 2500 years ago?
So basically you are saying is that you are not a real American and the Declaration of Independence was a load of shit.
I have told you before that I am a Deist, assuming you understand. I am probably closer to the founders of the USA than you will ever be. Let me put it bluntly: the creator left everything to human folly after the Beginning of time. He doesn't meddle at all and there is no indication that he ever will.
How cute buckeroo. Do you talk to the Easter bunny?
We are endowed with free will; that is to say, to exercise reason based on all information and other evidence to understand the world around ourselves and take action to improve our own lives and family and friends beyond the giving of a tithe to a church; as you say, the Easter Bunny. We have no church in the natural world around ourselves other than what our senses transmit to our reason which is tempered by education. It is self evident. Don't you rely on your own senses to determine your own reason for survival? Or do you go to a church and beg to be forgiven because you feel powerless about your own circumstances whether real or imagined? There's a lot to consider about survival and I have yet to see anyone SURVIVE based on someone's prayers or belief in a Holy Book.
Well you couldn't see George Washington but you obviously think he was a liar.
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and even Benjamin Franklin are just a few founders of America that fought for the making of the USA. They maintained relevance to Christianity as Christianity was a fundamental weekly meeting in local communities. But, they were Deists. Why do you say I am a liar?
Deism was far different at that time, than what we see today. As an example, they beloved the Lord controlled nature. Today Deism is similar to atheism.
As I have told you before, you know little. You just don't seem to understand that organized religions are full of silly traditions and impractical ideas and ideals that do not respect or understand TRUTH about the world around us. To do so requires individualistic effort of reason, not the belief of dogma: we should question everything; established churches are the anti-thesis of our creator's intent for individual being and free spirit.
If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.
I have NEVER suggested or hinted in any post stated on LF or elsewhere, "there is no GOD." Go see any of my posts on LF for verification purposes and you will be scrutinizing thousands as I have been here for a long, long tyme. I suggest otherwise and always have. There is a creator. He is unknowable and immediately following the creation of TIME, the creator has never intervened in anything, especially in human affairs.
And YOUR evidence for an unknowable God is what?
Actually you have my perspective back-asswards. I say organized religions are contemptuous instruments towards mankind, no matter their affiliation. You can't find any other than through our senses an being planted here to include the creator's intervention in any human endeavour through thousands of years of human history beyond hearsay, innuendo, gossip and hand-me-down information from dogmatic approaches of mesmerizing mind control.
The Bible is historically ACCURATE. Whether "hand-me-down" oral history, written on scrap papyrus, or through Moses who spoke directly to God or the prophets who also spoke to God, or transcribed His thoughts TO them on our behalf. DATES. PEOPLE. PLACES. EVENTS. All documented to be absolutely correct. Many have tried to discredit any and all of it, un-successfully. The numerous prophesies are also ALL come true. How can you explain this degree of accuracy from "hearsay, innuendo, gossip, and hand-me-down info"? Q: If you believe in God as you state, it isn't because you've been "mind-controlled" to any degree. Or is it? What are the qualities of this universe, this life and our human existence that compel you to possess any faith at all?
Which Bible are you referring to? There are a lot of them, with major and minor variations, so please be ACCURATE, yourself. In fact, there are as many Christian churches as variations of the Bible ... with some Christian churches renouncing some Bibles "as the seeds of the Devil." When observing the world around myself, I question the entire experience process. Some entity created all of the Universe; that being is unknowable. I call that being the creator.
Let's just go with the King James Version for the moment. When observing the world around myself, I question the entire experience process. Some entity created all of the Universe; that being is unknowable. I call that being the creator. Thanks for answering the questions, honestly.
So, I purchased a variation of the Bible called, "Modern English Version" a few years ago which attempts to use contemporary English as a way of describing the scripture based on King James Version. My wife took the Bible to the local minister for evaluation and he said, "it was of the Devil." How did he get that authority? My wife wanted a book burning party which I did not permit.
How did he get that authority? There are many Bibles that attempt to "modernize" the language of Olde English" KJV. The problem with many of these "modern" translations or interpretations -- crucial meanings are lost, changed, and lest I say it -- subverted. FWIW, I myself use both the KJV as well as the New King James Version -- with help from supplemental King James Bible Study manuals and Commentary, matching up key verses. Buck, I did a quick check up on the "Modern English Version" -- at this particular website link, they seem to concur with your wife's Minister (you are blessed to have a wife who seeks the truth from the Word.) They compare and contrast some verse examples, gauging interpretational changes in meaning that do matter. (I haven't time to examine it at the moment; Perhaps Red can also weigh in on this issue.) http://www.jesusisprecious.org/bible/mev/satanic_counterfeit.htm
http://www.jesusisprecious.org/bible/mev/satanic_counterfeit.htm I inspected that page and consider it over the top. They spend a lot of time complaining about the nuances of copyright law (which apply even more to copyrights being renewed for versions like NIV and others than to the MEV). MEV was only complete in 2013. So they don't need to worry much about renewing a copyright to create a new derivative copyright to protect their profits for some years yet. Again, NIV and other big publishers routinely make rather shocking revisions to their current versions just to keep getting new derivative copyrights issued. As to the samples of text comparisons between KJV and MEV, their complaints seem pretty minor if that is the extent of how much the MEV has wandered, ever so slightly, away from the KJV's intended meanings. buckeroo, don't dump your MEV. It's fine. So are a handful of other similar modern KJV paraphrases that are similar to it. Nothing seriously wrong with any of them even if you can find a verse or two to quibble over. The vast majority of text renderings are accurate enough.
#191. To: Tooconservative, Liberator (#189)
Thanks TC. I need to finish that earlier post concerning the preacher suggesting ... "it [MEV] was of the Devil." A few weeks later, I reached for the MEV and notice the cover was completely changed. Instead, I have this book called, START!:
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: Pinguinite (#4)
Namely that it doesn't matter how we got here,
#36. To: A K A Stone, redleghunter, Vicomte13, no gnu taxes, Pinguinite (#6)
...If Genesis is false there is no reason for Jesus to come and save us.
b) ALL Sinners must be mortal and die (along with ALL life and matter) within this Material Realm as a result
c) Can not nor will NOT enter the holy presence and spiritual Realm of God- the-Creator as a Sinner
d) As a result, a substitute/proxy "sinless" man (Jesus, God-in-the-flesh) is required to "pay" for the sin-debt. Only the sin-less can be in the presence of God
Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me. ~ John 14:6, (KJV 2000)
#46. To: Liberator (#36)
...If Genesis is false there is no reason for Jesus to come and save us.
Indeed. Nail hit on the head.
There is an ENTIRE movement of Rebellion/Bogus Revolution-Evolution/Conspiracy to dismiss, disregard, or otherwise discredit Genesis as a "Fairy Tale". Genesis is directly hinged to Jesus Christ, His Deity (as God-in-the-Flesh), Adam's/man's original sin...and God's Plan of Redemption through the death of a sin-less Jesus.
It's both a simple but convoluted if one can't wrap their head around Genesis as truth and the idea that Adam):
#50. To: Pinguinite (#46)
Some people, in a Christian context, take Genesis not as a complete fabrication per se, but as something that, while not literally true, is still metaphorically true.
#61. To: Liberator (#50)
Genesis isn't intended to be a metaphor, but literal
#63. To: A Pole (#61)
(Edited)
Genesis is a mystical book with hidden meaning visible to the elect
#65. To: Liberator (#63)
The only things "mysterious" are the details. It is stated that there WILL be "mysteries," i.e, things mankind will never know, or not intended to know (either because they are un-important OR because they possibly detract or distract from what is actually important: THE GOSPEL.)
#66. To: buckeroo (#65)
#67. To: Liberator (#66)
#69. To: buckeroo (#67)
You will never find a record that suggests "Genesis" was written before.
#71. To: no gnu taxes (#69)
However, the records that were preserved were definitely written before that.
#89. To: buckeroo, no gnu taxes (#71)
Back your statement with facts based on scientific research and discovery.
#90. To: Liberator (#89)
#107. To: buckeroo, no gnu taxes (#90)
You will never see an authentic Biblical record more recent than 1000 BCE.
#112. To: Liberator (#107)
Moses lived in the 1400s BC.
#117. To: buckeroo (#112)
(Edited)
[Moses] lived for what ... one thousand years? That is quite a lifespan, don't you think?
#119. To: Liberator (#117)
#120. To: buckeroo, no gnu taxes, pinguinite, redleghunter, A K A Stone (#119)
(Edited)
The contents of the Old Testament are largely fictional about anyone's longevity. Why? These folks lived a difficult life (day to day struggle actually) with little nourishing food or adequate health care.
Lifespans before the Flood
Adam ? 930 Seth 105 912 Enosh 90 905 Cainan 70 910 Mahalealel 65 895 Jared 162 962 Enoch 65 365 Methuselah 187 969 Lamech 182 777 Noah 500 950 Lifespans after the Flood
Shem 100 600 Arphaxad 35 438 Salah 30 433 Eber 34 464 Peleg 30 239 Reu 32 239 Serug 30 230 Nahor 29 148 Terah 70 205 Abraham 100 175 Isaac 60 180 Did you know about the Patriarchs . . . ?
#122. To: Liberator (#120)
Are you referring to the Pre-Flood days? Or the post-Flood from Abraham till Moses... and beyond?
The story of Ireland in the 1800s is apropos here, during the Great Potatoe Famine. They lost everything with Great Britain ignoring the plight. And, all of a sudden, Leprechauns sprung up with Pots o' Gold!
#131. To: buckeroo (#122)
#132. To: A K A Stone (#131)
So basically you are saying is that you are not a real American and the Declaration of Independence was a load of shit.
#134. To: buckeroo (#132)
#135. To: A K A Stone (#134)
#137. To: buckeroo (#135)
There's a lot to consider about survival and I have yet to see anyone SURVIVE based on someone's prayers or belief in a Holy Book.
#139. To: A K A Stone (#137)
#141. To: buckeroo (#139)
((I have told you before that I am a Deist, assuming you understand. I am probably closer to the founders of the USA than you will ever be.))
#142. To: GarySpFC (#141)
#143. To: buckeroo (#142)
#144. To: GarySpFC (#143)
#145. To: buckeroo (#144)
((I suggest otherwise and always have. There is a creator. He is unknowable and immediately following the creation of TIME, the creator has never intervened in anything, especially in human affairs.))
#146. To: GarySpFC (#145)
And YOUR evidence for an unknowable God is what?
And YOUR evidence for an unknowable God is what?
#157. To: buckeroo, GarySpFC (#146)
...Thousands of years of human history beyond hearsay, innuendo, gossip and hand-me-down information from dogmatic approaches of mesmerizing mind control.
#160. To: Liberator (#157)
The Bible is historically ACCURATE. Whether "hand-me-down" oral history, written on scrap papyrus, or through Moses who spoke directly to God or the prophets who also spoke to God, or transcribed His thoughts TO them on our behalf.
Q: If you believe in God as you state, it isn't because you've been "mind-controlled" to any degree. Or is it? What are the qualities of this universe, this life and our human existence that compel you to possess any faith at all?
#171. To: buckeroo (#160)
Which Bible are you referring to?
#173. To: Liberator (#171)
Let's just go with the King James Version for the moment.
#174. To: buckeroo, redleghunter (#173)
So, I purchased a variation of the Bible called, "Modern English Version" a few years ago which attempts to use contemporary English as a way of describing the scripture based on King James Version. My wife took the Bible to the local minister for evaluation and he said, "it was of the Devil."
#189. To: Liberator, buckeroo (#174)
Buck, I did a quick check up on the "Modern English Version" -- at this particular website link, they seem to concur with your wife's Minister (you are blessed to have a wife who seeks the truth from the Word.) They compare and contrast some verse examples, gauging interpretational changes in meaning that do matter. (I haven't time to examine it at the moment; Perhaps Red can also weigh in on this issue.)
Replies to Comment # 189. ... don't dump your MEV. It's fine. So are a handful of other similar modern KJV paraphrases that are similar to it. Nothing seriously wrong with any of them even if you can find a verse or two to quibble over. The vast majority of text renderings are accurate enough.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 189.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]