If he knew about all the scientific evidence pointing towards evolution and known about all the archaeological findings of Neanderthals and Homo erectus, would he still put this story in the bible? I mean it really only makes God look like a d!ck.
216501
I think the story would still be in because I don't believe it is truly fictional.  In my opinion, the story is based upon the fall of Atlantis.  We were living in harmony because we were connected directly to God/Source through these axiatonal lines in our energy bodies.\n\nOur energy bodies are comprised of energy lines of force.  The sanskrit word for this is nadis. (accupuncturists tap into these lines in our bodies, facilitating the flow of energy).  These energy axiatonal lines allowed for us to be able to create our desires.  But somewhere along the way, we became too powerful (some psychics say we were able to harness the power in crystals and blew ourselves up)...when this happened, we lost the axiatonal line connection....our direct connection go God/Source....lost our ability to create our desires at will.....or as the story goes, we ate from the tree and got kicked out of Eden.....again, we did it to ourselves....we screwed up....not God getting ticked and kicking us out.\nOnly now do we have the ability to reconnect those axiatonal lines.....you may have heard of DNA Activation...start reconnecting and you can start making things happen as long as it's good for all.
525285
God didn't lie to the bible writers - THEY MADE IT UP\n\nThe bible writers are the liars\n\nHere's another thought - if we found a science book from the 1st century, do you think it would be of any revelance now?
180445
i am agnostic... i beleive the bible is a compilation of myth and legend. kind of like a really good tall tale. i have been known to compare jesus to paul bunyun... yeah their was a big axe wielding lumberer named paul bunyun but did he really have a blue ox... hell no.. sure jesus was a good dude, but did he really do any miracles... i kinda doubt it.
295573
Dinosaurs are never mentioned explicitly in the Bible, if at all. I have already seen you have been pointed to Job for Leviathan and Behemoth. That's the only potential mention in the Bible of dinosaurs.\n\nI see the creation story at the beginning of Genesis as a very quick overview - not a scientific textbook on how God made the world, but more of an overview to say "God made the universe, then he made man, then man screwed up and let's pick up with these people here." So, to me, the beginning stories - the creation and fall - are there as a quick introduction that sets the tone and the themes for, really, the entire rest of the Bible.
425982
I think your being a bit too general. You know everything is not that black and white. There is some truth to your statement but it does ot apply to all.There are too many scientific and archaeological statements in the bible that have been proven to be true.There are too many facts to dismiss.
204709
Joshua.  People like you crack me up.  Really!  You argue about biblical-specific entries and events as if they were factual and undeniable.  "written 4000 years ago"  On what?  Notebook paper?  Do you have some copies of those 4000 year old writings?  Do you have some secret text that nobody else has ever seen?  Are you on heroin or acid?  What's your trip?  None of the authors of the NT witnessed the alleged resurrection.  No matter how you stretch it, there are no actual accounts of it.  Most of the NT was created and written in 320AD under the direction of Constantine the Great, and its puirpose was NOT for historic accuracy.  Its purpose was to create a doctrine at the Council of Nicea that all factions of religious doctrine could agree upon and pull everyone together.  Why does it appear that there only a few people that post here regularly who actually know this?  Is your only source of "history" the Bible itself?  Are you crazy enough to use the Bible to prove the Bible?  Talk about illogic!\n\nThe original poster is correct -- if the notion of god portrayed in the bible is accurate, then there is no need for "free will" -- God already knows how things turn out.  He already knows who chooses free will and who doesn't choose free will, how they act, and who the sinners are and who goes to hell.  He already knows the choices people made in the past and what they'll make in the future.  He already knows how things will turn.  Already been there.  Outside of the time line?  Fine, state it however you wish.  It's still the same.  He's all knowing.  He knows how the "souls" will turn out. There's no need for a test on earth.\n\nThe question is not flawed at all.  Your assumption that the Bible is incontrovertible is flawed, and your statements of biblical myths as assertion are ridiculous.  It is one of hundreds of unprovable myths on this whole planet, full of fatal flaws, like the one this question raises.
146694
LOL! That is a weird theory, but I know what you mean. It is a joke to think people would take a book as more proof than scientific facts. And a god that is constantly destroying his own creation for political reasons is even more absurd.
495066
And you believed it??\n\nHA!!!!\n\nNo one should take the Bible seriously, at least not as a scientific textbook.\n\nIt was written by ignorant, superstitious Bronze Age nomads who knew nothing of modern science and biological specifics.
562634
I honestly don't think evolution goes against the Bible. Sure, it might go hand in hand with the Bible, but the Bible is not meant to be believed word for word (in my opinion). I'm pretty sure it's the morals behind the stories in the Bible that are important. \n\nIt's stupid that the evolution vs. creation debate has reached such a height. It's especially bad in schools. Personally, I think they should teach everything in schools, you know? The theory of creation, the theory of evolution...even the theory that we all come from space. Of course the youth of today believe firmly in the Big Bang and evolution and Lerman's Bubble Model...most of them weren't taught anything else! That makes for a horribly narrow minded generation. \n\nThe problem with people is that they are so stuck in their ways that they can't see the merit of other ideas, and can't see how those ideas just might intermingle. Maybe the seven days of creation really happened over millions and millions of years, or maybe God put life on earth and just sort of let it go. No one can really know, right?\n\nAnd finally, I'm sick of how everyone says that science is the antithesis of religion. It's not. Sure, we keep finding explanations for everything we used to attribute to God, but in the end, there are some things we will NEVER be able to explain. As you said, that one little point of matter had to come from somewhere. Why not God? \n\nAnd on a final note, I also have trouble with the Big Bang theory. Did you know that there's only a few pieces of completely inconsequential evidence for it? First, they say that there's the same ratio of helium to hydrogen that there might have been at the formation of the universe. So? Secondly, the temperature of space is not absolute zero, which most likely means that the universe is moving. While a huge explosion billions of years ago might attribute for that, it is most certainly not the only possible explanation. The only real convincing bit of evidence is the red shift. As things get further away, they take on a slightly reddish hue (do to wavelengths of visible light and such). Extremely sensitive instruments have shown that the universe has a red tint, which means everything is moving further away. Still, the expansion of the universe may very well be caused by something other than a big bang.\n\nAs I said, people really shouldn't be taught this stuff as truth when it's an unsturdy theory at best. \n\nSorry, I know this was a little scatterbrained. I just really think that the debate is stupid.
532377
I have studied earth science. \nFirst of all, their scientific name is a (best estimate) i.e. in their opinion. so the wee table is just their own version of what refers to modern day equivalent in science. \nThe only evidence they use to suggest the bible is talking about a dinosaur (rather than elephant or hippo) is a tail like a Cedar.  this could apply to crocodile but they don't mention that - apart from to say "oh -BTW it can't be a croc eh?" without actually giving any decent reason as to why.\nI don't know why I can't read Job 41 18-21without realising it breathes fire.  Such obviousness escapes me.  As also does the beetle chat. err...because one thing (and I haven't bothered to look up if it can) breathes fire, another surely can? What - how does that work? Because a flea can jump 50 times it's own heigth, can I? Also, all earth scientist would love to have a fire breathing lizard, but no studies have proved it's existance.   \nThen later (I'm skimming this now, there's loads of made up stuff), they say "Nobody has ever proven that the Bible contains any inaccurately recorded information" - well I'd kind of like to see the other way round.  Proving a negative is, well, impossible.  If I said there is a planet made of jelly a milllion light years away, does that make me correct until proven wrong? \nthen they do that wonderful thing of "hmm yes we have evidence of dinosaurs being created one day before man etc etc...but in order to see it you have to read through pages and pages of more subjective chat", personally I gave up cos if they are that confident they would put there evidence right in their on their page, or at least give a description of how.  \nThis page is someone's belief and doen't make me think anything other than what I have studied through rational science.
37594
I looked at the reviews of the books you mentioned on amazon.com. From what I can tell, I am afraid they do not offer much in the way of solid technical arguments or new discussions or reasons that creationism or a young earth hypothesis must be chosen over the current dominant accepted theories. The "experts" in the book "In Six Days" offer little that has not been dismissed before as specious arguments. Unfortunately, although these 50 gentlemen have PhDs, they are offering opinions in areas well outside their areas of expertise, in most cases. Many of arguments violate well-known scientific principles and laws.  \n\nI do applaud the creationists for trying to compile books that state their arguments and reasoning. We definitely need more of these, and we need to approach this subject with more intellectual honesty and integrity than has been evidenced in the past. \n\nI myself feel I could write a far more compelling book supporting faith that would be far more careful, if I was so inclined. I feel more of a general awe of creation, somewhat similar to that of Einstein, or Thomas Jefferson, or Newton. \n\nIt is disappointing and disconcerting that so far, these kinds of products produced by the religious community have hurt more than they have helped, have discredited those of religious faith and cast them in a bad light. They have tended to lend support for the opposite point of view, and have not succeeded as intended I am sorry to say.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \n\nAddendum:\n\nYes I am being honest. I have often been struck by some of the most amazing structures in science when I have been doing scientific investigations or learning about science. Unfortunately, I did not keep notes. I think that this is where religious people should direct their attention if they want to grasp the incredible majesty of creation. And it has the advantage that it is beautiful in structure, and unassailable, and compltely scientifically rigorous. \n\nHowever, I am not sure how many people of faith want to undertake a 15+ year journey into abstruse mathematics and physics, or are willing to approach it with a completely open mind. In fact, what I would ask is, if one is absolutely sure of one's faith, then would it not make sense to allow science to continue to unravel the mysteries of nature? After all, if you are positive what the conclusion will be, let them bolster your arguments with facts. If I am not mistaken, this has been the Vatican's approach for some decades.
455291
It's interesting because I use the same thought process as you to arrive at a totally different conclusion.  For me it is like, God doesn't fit into my "nice neat little box" so he can't exist.  That might sound close-minded so I'll elaborate.  In my eyes, science is beginning to understand more and more of the world and our origins.  Now when I look at the overwhelming evidence of evolution and even just the happenings around me, I form a general understanding of the world that I am comfortable with.  Now when something enters my world view (God) I have to examine the evidence and tinker with the idea to see if it fits.  The problem with God is, I've seen no evidence and he just plain does not fit.  With science, no matter what your mindset, the evidence is right there for you to see regardless of your bias or what conclusions you draw from it.  Basically, if I saw real evidence of God, I could attempt to rearrange the rules and see if he fits, but I don't believe I should have to break the rules to even see evidence of him.  That makes it sound like the first step to becoming a Christian is to delude yourself.
670094
A necessary note from Pablo. \n\nWhere is the Ark of the Covenant? The Ark of the Covenant mysteriously disappeared 2,500 years ago. Amateur archeologist Ron Wyatt claimed he found it. It is important to realize that three of Ron’s many discoveries are widely accepted: \n\n\nThe Turkish government has officially proclaimed that Ron Wyatt found Noah’s Ark. \nIsraeli tour guides take visitors to the site Ron Wyatt identified as the sites of Sodom and Gomorrah where the cities, although turned into ashes, are still visible. \nAnd most investigators believe his discovery of Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia, as well as the site of the crossing of the Red Sea by the children of Israel. \n(Necessary is to say that lately some immoral "investigators," in order to make money through their books and videos, have attempted to appropriate for themselves these last two discoveries by not giving proper credit to Wyatt when they make their presentations of it). (For some evidences of Wyatt's discoveries see links at the end of this article) \nNotwithstanding all the above validated discoveries, many so-called "skeptics" — Christians and not — still doubt Ron’s claim that he found the Ark of the Covenant and go to all extremes to deny it. Why? Because its acceptance would entail too many serious consequences for many uninformed Christians unconsciously affected by the all-encompassing Replacement Theology, for rabbinic Judaism, for all pagan religions of the world and for Evolutionism. In other words, its acceptance would deeply revolutionize the fabric of human society due to its "disturbing" spiritual ramifications. Therefore, Satan will use any and all his minions in order to try and stop the information on this page to be publicly known, and most of all accepted. Read on, and let the Spirit of the Almighty tell to your heart and your mind what the truth is. I know that his truth can make you free — or freer. \n\nPablo \n\n\n\nThis article describes in detail the most amazing and important discovery ever made in Archeology. The finding of the Ark of the Covenant by a Christian amateur archeologist, Ron Wyatt — a real Indian Jones — in 1982. Here you will find out why you might have never heard of it before despite of its proven reality. In this description there are many things that are amazing enough as to leave the blockbusters of Steven Spielberg deep in the dust. The reality and significance of what Ron Wyatt discovered in so fabulously mind blowing that only God, the ultra-imaginative Creator of the Universe could ever had conceived the most portentous element in this discovery. If you have Christ in you, be advised, you will cry. I did. It is also necessary to say that Wyatt made his phenomenal discoveries (this was not the only one, here you will read about several in connection with the sacred Ark) by strictly following the indications given in the Bible and by tuning with God in prayer. He proved that God uses those less likely to do His work on this earth ... and the results are awesome that lead to you bow and worship Him who has no equal in Eternity. To Him all Glory. To Wyatt thanks in Heaven. And to you a huge surprise lies ahead. Read on. \n\n"For nothing is secret,that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad."   Lucius (Lukius, Luke) 8.17 \n\n\n\nIntroduction To The Discovery\nRon's Studies\n\n\nWhen Ron Wyatt returned to America after his unusual experience in Jerusalem, he studied the Bible closely, noting the last time the Ark's location was mentioned. He discovered it was when King Josiah of Judah wanted to reform the country, "Moreover Josiah kept a Passover unto the Lord in Jerusalem; and they killed the Passover on the 14th day of the first month. And said unto the Levites that taught all Israel, which were holy unto the Lord: 'Put the Holy Ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of
653713
No. god decided to contradict himself by taking away free will for a bit, so he could get the humans to write his book for him.\nAnd of course, that's ignoring all the inconsistancies in the new testament, like made up prophesies and the evidence to support that the old testament was actually copied from ancient Sumerian stone tablets...\n\n:)\n\nTY, shawny  :D
657834
Quote: "You do realize that not everything in the cosmos is logical, yes?"\n\nAbsolutely. But answering these questions with "God created such and such" goes no further in explaining them. In fact, it simply muddies the waters more by pretending to know the unknowable.\n\nQuote: "Do you think it's wise to arbitrarily mythologize every faith?"\n\nLet's face it, most religions have wrapped themselves in myth far more than we could ever do by offering up fables and patently ridiculous stories. These stories, by the way, suddenly ceased to happen around the same time that science became prominent enough to refute them. \n\nQuote: "The truth is there, but it's not always elegant, and it's not always what we wish it were."\n\nJust briefly, take a look at how science approaches a problem and then how religion does it? Do you see a difference? Science STUDIES a problem, it pursues it from different angles and attempts to understand through hueristic methods. In the end, science pursues truth. Religion simply assumes that it already knows.\n\nEdit: To ChrimsonCarrots below: The Bible has credentials? What credentials? These people were NOT historians with an eye on detail and accuracy. Gospel itself means "good news". The goal was to push the idea of Christianity into a positive light and to perpetuate it. If I remember correctly, the story of the crucifiction is told within four books of the bible, Mathew, Luke, Mark, and Paul, the earliest of which was written AT LEAST forty years AFTER the crucifiction. Are you suggestiing that this is reliable and accurate information?
297290
Being an historian I will reserve judgement until I see the evidence personally.  I've NEVER read from a credible source that scientists have stated that the Bible to be one of the most accurate books ever written.\n\n\nShow ME the source and I will decide for myself.
596186
We're made in the spiritual image of God, but that doesn't mean we ARE God; we make mistakes.  The Bible does have some internal inconsistancies, but it's also about 4000 years old.  You can't expect a story to be reproduced perfectly all throughout that time.  And I don't think it really matters anyway, since the creation story is more meant to be a parable than a factual history.  The message is more important than the individual details.