The New Christian Thread 4

[Fiyero]

Just wanted to make some comments on a specific topic for the Christians ITT who believe that the beginning of Genesis is not literal.

- Why would Jesus Christ reference the creation story in Genesis as if it was true?

Why would Jesus speak in parables if they're metaphors?

- If it's not to be taken literally, why did Jesus say, in Luke 11 and Matthew 23, "All the righteous bloodshed from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, will come upon this generation"...... why would that generation be held responsible for the blood of a fake mythological Abel? Jesus spoke as if this really happened. how can you punish a generation for something that never happened, God wouldn't do that

But he'll punish us for the sins of other people?

- Why did Jesus refer to the days of Noah, as if it were real? "It will be as in the days of Noah"...... Jesus clearly seems to believe that Noah was real, which means the story of the global flood is a historical event in the mind of Jesus Christ.

Because the Jews he was speaking to knew about the story, and thus would get his reference. Its accuracy or literalness doesn't detract from the meaning of the story.

- In Matthew 19, Jesus was asked about the rules of divorce. Jesus responded, "He who made them in the beginning made them Male and Female, for this cause a man shall leave his father and mother......." .... Jesus also says that if God has joined them together, let no man tear it apart. If Adam and Eve were not real, why would Jesus constantly refer to them as if it was true?

Where does he say Adam and Eve are real? That could just as easily say God created the evolutionary process that resulted in a usual male and female pair. Let me challenge your own views. If that statement is 100% factual, what about those who are not male or female?

- If Adam never existed, then why does the geneaologies include Adam and all of his descendants as if he were a real person?

Mythology. The genealogies aren't entirely accurate to begin with.

Honestly, I think there is a problem if you allow the world to influence your faith in Genesis and God.

Saint Augustine answered this statement far better than I can.

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation. - The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]

[CalmWind]

I presented my beliefs based on Scripture. I believe it, just as Jesus did. That is all I have to say.

[SeymourCake]

- Why did Jesus refer to the days of Noah, as if it were real? "It will be as in the days of Noah"...... Jesus clearly seems to believe that Noah was real, which means the story of the global flood is a historical event in the mind of Jesus Christ.
.

The global event of the flood is not an exclusive story to the Torah or Bible. It is also recorded in Ancient Sumer, a civilization prior to the Hebrews.

The Sumerian hero Gilgamesh traveled the world in search of a way to cheat death. On one of his journeys, he came across an old man, Utnapishtim, who told Gilgamesh a story from centuries past. The gods brought a flood that swallowed the earth.

The gods were angry at mankind so they sent a flood to destroy him. The god Ea, warned Utnapishtim and instructed him to build an enormous boat to save himself, his family, and "the seed of all living things." He does so, and the gods brought rain which caused the water to rise for many days. When the rains subsided, the boat landed on a mountain, and Utnapishtim set loose first a dove, then a swallow, and finally a raven, which found land. The god Ishtar, created the rainbow and placed it in the sky, as a reminder to the gods and a pledge to mankind that there would be no more floods.



In fact, a lot if not all of the 10 Commandments Moses supposedly received also came from Ancient Sumer.

[CalmWind]

The global event of the flood is not an exclusive story to the Torah or Bible. It is also recorded in Ancient Sumer, a civilization prior to the Hebrews.

The Sumerian hero Gilgamesh traveled the world in search of a way to cheat death. On one of his journeys, he came across an old man, Utnapishtim, who told Gilgamesh a story from centuries past. The gods brought a flood that swallowed the earth.

Yes, I am aware of all of the global flood stories. My response : "Where there's smoke, there's a fire" It is evidence of a singular historical event.

But are you aware that the Native American indians, both in North America and Central/South America, have global flood stories in which humanity was repopulated by a few people ?

[SeymourCake]

Yes, I am aware of all of the global flood stories. My response : "Where there's smoke, there's a fire" It is evidence of a singular historical event.

But are you aware that the Native American indians, both in North America and Central/South America, have global flood stories in which humanity was repopulated by a few people ?

Kwi-wi-sens Nenaw-bo-zhoo, meaning, in Algonquin dialect, "The greatest clown-boy in the world." When he became a man, he was not only a great prophet among his people, but a giant of such marvellous strength, that he could wield his war-club with force enough to shatter in pieces the largest pine-tree. His hunting-dog was a monstrous black wolf, as large as a full-grown buffalo, with long, soft hair, and eyes that shone in the night like the moon. The deity of the sea saw the charming beauty of this wolf-dog, and was so extremely jealous of him, that he was determined to take his life. So he appeared before him in the form of a deer; and as the dog rushed to seize him, he was grasped by the deity and drowned in the depths of the sea. He then made a great barbecue and invited as his guests whales, serpents, and all the monsters of the deep, that they might exult and rejoice with him that he had slain the dog of the prophet.
When the seer-clown learned of the fate of his noble dog, through cunning Waw-goosh (the fox), whose keen eyes saw the deception that cost the wolf-dog his life, he sought to take revenge upon the sea-god. So he went at once to the place where the latter was accustomed to come on land with his monster servants to bathe in the sunshine, and there concealed himself among the tall rushes until the "caravan of the deep" came ashore. When they had fallen fast asleep, he drew his giant bow, twice as long as he was tall, and shot a poisoned arrow that pierced Neben Manito, the water-god, through the heart. Neben Manito rolled into the sea, and cried, "Revenge! Revenge!" Then all the assembled monsters of the deep rushed headlong after the slayer of their king. The prophet fled in consternation before the outraged creatures that hurled after him mountains of water, which swept down the forests like grass before the whirlwind. He continued to flee before the raging flood, but could find no dry land. In sore despair he then called upon the God of Heaven to save him, when there appeared before him a great canoe, in which were pairs of all kinds of land-beasts and birds, being rowed by a most beautiful maiden, who let down a rope and drew him up into the boat.

The flood raged on; but, though mountains of water were continually being hurled after the prophet, he was safe. When he had floated on the water many days, he ordered Aw-milk (the beaver) to dive down and, if he could reach the bottom, to bring up some earth. Down the latter plunged, but in a few minutes came floating to the surface lifeless. The prophet pulled him into the boat, blew into his mouth, and he became alive again. He then said to Waw-jashk (the musk-rat), "You are the best diver among all the animal creation. Go down to the bottom and bring me up some earth, out of which I will create a new world; for we cannot much longer live on the face of the deep."

Down plunged the musk-rat; but, like the beaver, he, too, soon came to the surface lifeless, and was drawn into the boat, whereupon the prophet blew into his mouth, and he became alive again. In his paw, however, was found a small quantity of earth, which the prophet rolled into a small ball, and tied to the neck of Ka-ke-gi (the raven), saying, "Go thou, and fly to and fro over the surface of the deep, that dry land may appear." The raven did so; the waters rolled away; the world resumed its former shape; and, in course of time, the maiden and prophet were united and repeopled the world.

[MuscleXtreme]

Kwi-wi-sens Nenaw-bo-zhoo, meaning, in Algonquin dialect, "The greatest clown-boy in the world." When he became a man, he was not only a great prophet among his people, but a giant of such marvellous strength, that he could wield his war-club with force enough to shatter in pieces the largest pine-tree. His hunting-dog was a monstrous black wolf, as large as a full-grown buffalo, with long, soft hair, and eyes that shone in the night like the moon. The deity of the sea saw the charming beauty of this wolf-dog, and was so extremely jealous of him, that he was determined to take his life. So he appeared before him in the form of a deer; and as the dog rushed to seize him, he was grasped by the deity and drowned in the depths of the sea. He then made a great barbecue and invited as his guests whales, serpents, and all the monsters of the deep, that they might exult and rejoice with him that he had slain the dog of the prophet.
When the seer-clown learned of the fate of his noble dog, through cunning Waw-goosh (the fox), whose keen eyes saw the deception that cost the wolf-dog his life, he sought to take revenge upon the sea-god. So he went at once to the place where the latter was accustomed to come on land with his monster servants to bathe in the sunshine, and there concealed himself among the tall rushes until the "caravan of the deep" came ashore. When they had fallen fast asleep, he drew his giant bow, twice as long as he was tall, and shot a poisoned arrow that pierced Neben Manito, the water-god, through the heart. Neben Manito rolled into the sea, and cried, "Revenge! Revenge!" Then all the assembled monsters of the deep rushed headlong after the slayer of their king. The prophet fled in consternation before the outraged creatures that hurled after him mountains of water, which swept down the forests like grass before the whirlwind. He continued to flee before the raging flood, but could find no dry land. In sore despair he then called upon the God of Heaven to save him, when there appeared before him a great canoe, in which were pairs of all kinds of land-beasts and birds, being rowed by a most beautiful maiden, who let down a rope and drew him up into the boat.

The flood raged on; but, though mountains of water were continually being hurled after the prophet, he was safe. When he had floated on the water many days, he ordered Aw-milk (the beaver) to dive down and, if he could reach the bottom, to bring up some earth. Down the latter plunged, but in a few minutes came floating to the surface lifeless. The prophet pulled him into the boat, blew into his mouth, and he became alive again. He then said to Waw-jashk (the musk-rat), "You are the best diver among all the animal creation. Go down to the bottom and bring me up some earth, out of which I will create a new world; for we cannot much longer live on the face of the deep."

Down plunged the musk-rat; but, like the beaver, he, too, soon came to the surface lifeless, and was drawn into the boat, whereupon the prophet blew into his mouth, and he became alive again. In his paw, however, was found a small quantity of earth, which the prophet rolled into a small ball, and tied to the neck of Ka-ke-gi (the raven), saying, "Go thou, and fly to and fro over the surface of the deep, that dry land may appear." The raven did so; the waters rolled away; the world resumed its former shape; and, in course of time, the maiden and prophet were united and repeopled the world.

Strong google copy & paste

[lasher]

[CalmWind]

lmao!

[WarrNation]

The global event of the flood is not an exclusive story to the Torah or Bible. It is also recorded in Ancient Sumer, a civilization prior to the Hebrews.

The Sumerian hero Gilgamesh traveled the world in search of a way to cheat death. On one of his journeys, he came across an old man, Utnapishtim, who told Gilgamesh a story from centuries past. The gods brought a flood that swallowed the earth.

The gods were angry at mankind so they sent a flood to destroy him. The god Ea, warned Utnapishtim and instructed him to build an enormous boat to save himself, his family, and "the seed of all living things." He does so, and the gods brought rain which caused the water to rise for many days. When the rains subsided, the boat landed on a mountain, and Utnapishtim set loose first a dove, then a swallow, and finally a raven, which found land. The god Ishtar, created the rainbow and placed it in the sky, as a reminder to the gods and a pledge to mankind that there would be no more floods.



In fact, a lot if not all of the 10 Commandments Moses supposedly received also came from Ancient Sumer.

The epic of Gilgamesh is plagiarised from the story of Noah.

[rdferguson]

Best. Ending. Ever.

[flexnation]

TFW I'm gone for over a month and not one PM from Confuoco asking about my whereabouts or asking me to father her children.
That goes for the rest of y'all *******s too

Confuoco basically has the Walls of Jericho around her brah. Get to marching.

Giggling like a little child in the campus library. Thanks brah.

[sawoobley]

Well, from what I have read, Satan can masquerade as an Angel of Light to people. He can perhaps shapeshift and manifest himself as different things.

What if Satan masqeuraded as a Snake, and that is why it could talk? It wasn't a normal animal snake? It's possible, especially when you consider how so many religions on every continent talk about a deity who takes the form of a Snake and requires blood sacrifice (even human blood like in the Americas)

When I read of him pretending to be an angel of light it makes me think he is able to fake having glory by making it appear as if he is surrounded by light. The thing is he was trying to deceive Adam and Eve. Appearing as a reptile doesn't seem like the best strategy IMO. Imagine how Adam must have been stunned to find out that a reptile convinced her to disobey God.

The idea is so foreign to our understanding of reality that it makes me think referring to Satan as a snake is more descriptive of his personality and character. Mind you this is not a miracle that God performed for some important purpose so it isn't important that Satan is an actual snake. We know there are currently men on the earth today who are evil and deceptive. Referring to them as snakes to describe them seems more reasonable than to think there are actual snakes that deceive people.

Also keep in mind Satan appeared to Jesus and tried to deceive him and he wasn't a snake at that time either. Though, when you think about it he could be described as such.

Yes, there are many religions that believe in odd superstitions.

[Athanasius90]

Genesis is a poetic narrative which incorporates symbolism and metaphor from the cultural milieu of the time. The serpent isn't a literal, actual snake capable of speech--it's an Assyrian symbol of fertility and wisdom.


"Early Christians seem to have been divided over whether to interpret the days of creation in Genesis 1 as literal days, or to understand them allegorically.

For example, St. Basil rejected an allegorical interpretation in his Hexa�meron, and affirmed 24-hour creation days:

I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. 'For I am not ashamed of the Gospel' [Romans 1:16].

'And there was evening and there was morning: one day.' And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say 'one day the first day'? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says 'one day,' it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day -- we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day.

Origen of Alexandria, in a passage that was later chosen by Gregory of Nazianzus for inclusion in the Philocalia, an anthology of some of his most important texts, made the following very modern-sounding remarks:

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

And in another passage, writing in response to the pagan intellectual Celsus, he said:

And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone), and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world."

[SeymourCake]

The epic of Gilgamesh is plagiarised from the story of Noah.

No. Quite the opposite actually.

[WarrNation]

No. Quite the opposite actually.

Oh, just because the book of Genesis was written after the Epic of Gilgamesh doesn't automatically imply that the Bible plagiarized the flood story from the ancient Sumerian myths.

Perhaps both authors copied their works from the same ancient source?


By the way, the Anunnaki (princely offspring) are eerily familiar to the biblical fallen angels (sons of God).

[WarrNation]

"For if God didn't spare angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;" 2 Peter 2:4

Why are the fallen angels locked down in Tartarus, while Satan and his band of merry men are allowed to roam free on earth and in heaven?

[resoog]

Why aren't there more cool Bible movies?

[rdferguson]

Why aren't there more cool Bible movies?

Because Christians who would make Bible movies are dorks who don't appreciate the film genre, and non-Christians who would make Bible(esque) movies are di<ks who don't appreciate the content.

Sorry, they're not necessarily di<ks, but it just flowed so well as a mirror to dorks.

[magog704]

Why aren't there more cool Bible movies?

uh braj charlton heston as moses?

[rdferguson]

Just wanted to make some comments on a specific topic for the Christians ITT who believe that the beginning of Genesis is not literal.

- Why would Jesus Christ reference the creation story in Genesis as if it was true?

- If it's not to be taken literally, why did Jesus say, in Luke 11 and Matthew 23, "All the righteous bloodshed from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, will come upon this generation"...... why would that generation be held responsible for the blood of a fake mythological Abel? Jesus spoke as if this really happened. how can you punish a generation for something that never happened, God wouldn't do that

- Why did Jesus refer to the days of Noah, as if it were real? "It will be as in the days of Noah"...... Jesus clearly seems to believe that Noah was real, which means the story of the global flood is a historical event in the mind of Jesus Christ.

- In Matthew 19, Jesus was asked about the rules of divorce. Jesus responded, "He who made them in the beginning made them Male and Female, for this cause a man shall leave his father and mother......." .... Jesus also says that if God has joined them together, let no man tear it apart. If Adam and Eve were not real, why would Jesus constantly refer to them as if it was true?

- If Adam never existed, then why does the geneaologies include Adam and all of his descendants as if he were a real person?



Honestly, I think there is a problem if you allow the world to influence your faith in Genesis and God. I don't care how many atheists "lol" at the thought of a talking snake, I will have faith in the Father that these accounts are true, and they are SUPERNATURAL. Someone who wants to be a Naturalist obviously will not believe Supernatural events, but that is not our problem as Christians. Christians can believe Jesus resurrected from the dead, walked on water... but have a problem with a talking snake or Adam/Eve?

If Yeshua Messiah believed it, and God handed this down to us through Moses, then I will believe it.

The false equivalency is strong in this one.

Jesus refers to the theological backbone of Judaism. Doing so does not add any certainty that the theological truths revealed in Genesis correlate with historical facts. The creation account (and potentially further into the early chapters of Genesis) is a lot of things. To the absolute best of my understanding -- based on actually reading about it and listening to experts, not on asking rhetorical questions -- an attempt to record history is not one of those things. 2:4 onwards might be. Maybe. The seven days are not.

Here's some of what we do know about the seven days:

- The first 5 days were each "a [nth] day" rather than "the [nth] day" in the original language. Simply by going from "the" to "a," in other words, by reading the text, any linear immediacy between the days is instantly called into question. It isn't refuted, but it isn't supported, either.
- We only get "the [nth] day" on 6 and 7. Breaking the pattern is significant. It tells us these are special days.
- In Ancient Near Eastern numerology, 6 was the number for man and beasts, and 7 was the number for God.
- The first sentence was 7 words long; the second sentence was 14 words long. The author is making a statement about God before he even mentions days.
- The first use of the word "day" refers to the time in which light is present, so by definition it's not a 24-hour day.
- As soon as we move from the 7-day account to the Adam and Eve account, the entire account we've just read is immediately called "the day."
- The seventh day is the most important day of creation. Calling it a 6-day creation account exposes a total lack of understanding of what actually happens on the seventh. On the seventh day, God "rests." If you're a 21st Century person who knows nothing about the Ancient Near East, you think that means God wasn't doing anything on the seventh day. If, however, you're the original audience of Genesis, you go: "Oh wow, this whole thing has been about the inauguration of God's temple! Amazing!" Because gods rest in their temples, and their rest is not to laze about but to be in control. Genesis is saying that the whole of creation is God's temple and he's in control.
- The seventh day has neither a beginning nor an end. I'll leave you to interpret what that might mean.

And here are some points of cultural context:

- At the time that Genesis 1 was first written, the Babylonian creation account Enuma Elish was well-known, including by Israelites.
- Enuma Elish is a 7-act creation account.
- In the 6th act, humans are created.
- Humans were created as an afterthought to feed the gods. In Genesis, God creates humans as the centrepiece of creation and feeds us.
- There were many gods listed by name up front. In Genesis, there is one God, and the author refuses to address God by his name so as to give no hint that there is any other god.
- The world is the messy bi-product of the gods warring with each other: it is the product of chaos with no purpose in itself. In Genesis, God carefully and lovingly orders the world to reflect his good character with the pinnacle being the very good reflection of mankind, who he gives special purpose to and who, again, he cares for and feeds.
- The goal of Genesis seems to be neither to copy Enuma Elish nor to say what really happened, so much as it is to parody and subvert a bunch of false claims about God, creation and humanity by mirroring those claims with true claims about who God is, his nature, his desires for creation, how ordered creation is, and his loving relationship with humans.

And now some stuff about what's actually being created:

- We don't see a lot of something from nothing, but rather something from something.
---> There is water (an infinitely deep amount, going by ancient cosmology) before creation begins.
---> God splits the light and calls it day and night, designating time. God splits the water and the space between the waters he calls sky. God splits the water again, and the space unveiled he calls land. Out of the land comes plant life. Even humans he makes from dust (and, arguably, from animals, given the order of the 6th day -- it's quite reasonable to infer that from among the animals he set apart humans to be his image-bearers, especially given how much separating and ordering he's been doing so far), and Eve he makes from Adam.
- We see a lot of separating and ordering, shaping things and moving them from chaos to order, but not a lot of actually making things.
- We see that the sun, moon and stars (worshipped as gods by Babylonians) are made to serve humans, even two days before humans are created.
- In the sense of making something from nothing, at most we can say that in Genesis God made light and the things that emit light.
- None of this is to say that the physical stuff of the cosmos would have been there without God. It is right to infer that stuff exists at all because God makes it exist, and the ancient Israelites understood this. But that's not what Genesis is on about. It's on about God forming the world as his temple in which he resides with his special guests, us. By actually reading it literally, we see very little focus on how the material components of the cosmos got there, but much more focus on how they came to be ordered for God's good purposes.
- This is difficult to explain, but people in the Ancient Near East had a different understanding of existence compared to our understanding now. They understood existence to be true when something functions in an ordered system. So something that is physically there but has no purpose doesn't exist on their worldview. They would have understood Genesis to be about God literally bringing everything into existence, and at the same time would not have been concerned about how long everything had been there before it came to exist.

But you know what? Just forget everything I just wrote. All of it. Don't even think about it. Instead, let's go down your rabbit hole and take the creation account in Genesis "literally" (by which you actually mean "literalistically"). Stop thinking like a 21st Century westerner, stop imposing your understanding of the cosmos into Genesis, and let's see what kind of world Genesis physically describes:

- There's water above and water below.
- By above, I mean actually *above*, not out away from land.
- By below, I mean actually *below*. As in down. Down a long way. Genesis itself doesn't say how deep because it was assumed to be infinitely deep, but for the sake of this exercise, we can ignore the question of how deep the water is.
- By water above, I mean *water above*, not clouds. There is actual water water up there. So day 2 tells us.
- We know that the water above is not clouds because of what sites between that water and us: the sky, including the sun and the moon and the stars. The clouds are in the sky, not above it, and certainly not above the sun, moon or stars.
- This means the sun, moon and stars are literally in the sky, not in outer space. The cosmos is therefore geocentric.

How much does this sound like the world you live in? It doesn't sound an awful lot like the world I live in. It seems that in Genesis, we have four options:

1) Genesis is wrong. As Christians, we can't really stand by that.
2) God is wrong. As Christians, we really can't stand by that.
3) We are wrong. Not just about the age of the world but about the shape of the world and where we are in the solar system and how close the stars are to us and what all that blue stuff up there is. It isn't just evolution or the age of the cosmos that's called into question, it's all science since 1,500 BC.
4) In Genesis, God spoke into an ancient worldview without affirming it. Since I believe that the world is not only round but is hurtling around the sun, and since I don't believe that above the sun and the moon and the stars is an ocean, nor is there an infinitely deep ocean below us, yet I am convinced that God is real and Jesus is God, this is the only option I can work with.

[GreatOldOne]

Why aren't there more cool Bible movies?

They're probably a risky endeavor. The movie needs to be long. It may have expensive costumes and settings.

There's always a chance people will rage about you doing it the wrong way...declare it the work of the devil.

[lasher]

John Walton has an excellent series of books that tackle the Genesis issue.

The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate

The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority

The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate

[CalmWind]

By below, I mean actually *below*. As in down. Down a long way. Genesis itself doesn't say how deep because it was assumed to be infinitely deep, but for the sake of this exercise, we can ignore the question of how deep the water is.

Are you aware that humans have discovered that there is more water trapped underneath us, than there is in all of the world's oceans?

There is a lot we do not know. And the events in Genesis are supernatural.

snip

Genesis is not a scientific treatise on the creation of Earth. It is a simple way of explaining supernatural events to ancient Man, who was even less educated than we are. To try and understand Genesis in a modern scientific method is a hard thing to do, because God didn't mean it to be taken that way. And I wonder if it is even possible. Genesis was a miraculous act of creation by God. How can you try and explain a supernatural event with a naturalist explanation?


I am sure there are perfectly logical explanations of Genesis that would satisfy you and still be taken literally, and how they could be explained in current scientific terms, but God didn't provide that. In the same way that God never really explained how the unseen world works. He just told us it exists, and that there is a spiritual battle going on every day between the Angels and the devil and his fallen.

When I read Jesus' very words, referencing a very real Abel, a very real Adam and Eve, etc..... I take him at his word. When the Apostles reference a very real Adam, I take them at their word. I really do not care if a secular scientist objects.

There is no reason to believe it means anything else, unless of course someone wants it to mean something else. Perhaps some people need to reconcile the current understanding of human science with what is written in Genesis. And perhaps it's possible to do that. But I believe Faith should come before that, and I am not willing to force Genesis to fit into the current secular "scientific" views. If something appears to be in conflict between Genesis and your understanding of the Universe, then there is a perfectly good explanation for it, but it appears God didn't think it important enough for us to know yet. It wouldn't be the first time. And a scientific understanding of Genesis is one of the least important things I can think of. We are to be worried about spiritual warfare, obedience, dedication......

[streetlegaltank]

I admire how some of you are willing to type out a 1,000 word post to express your stance on these issues.

[Swamp Dog]

I admire how some of you are willing to type out a 1,000 word post to express your stance on these issues.

I know.
I have no idea how they do it

[magog704]

I admire how some of you are willing to type out a 1,000 word post to express your stance on these issues.

what was your weight at your 5k PR?

[MuscleXtreme]

I know.
I have no idea how they do it

I probably do the majority of my posting from my phone. Hence, most of my posts are brief and typo filled.

I wish I could post on a work computer, but there is no way I'll do that. Libs will fire me for my opinions not corresponding to their pc liberalism.

[streetlegaltank]

what was your weight at your 5k PR?

170ish... It seemed like I was around 172 for a while. I held onto my speed until I was about 185. The last couple of years I have redirected my efforts toward getting better at the sprints (with piss poor results I might add- I simply can not get out of the blocks).
I am starting to run distance again though. I think I have great endurance genetics though. Last week I went out running with a buddy and I died, we trained roughly the same amount and a week later I smoked him.

[magog704]

170ish... It seemed like I was around 172 for a while. I held onto my speed until I was about 185. The last couple of years I have redirected my efforts toward getting better at the sprints (with piss poor results I might add- I simply can not get out of the blocks).
I am starting to run distance again though. I think I have great endurance genetics though. Last week I went out running with a buddy and I died, we trained roughly the same amount and a week later I smoked him.

i always imagine that i can come back to a ~40 minute 10k pretty quickly, but i'm 31 now and i'm probably lying to myself. i have been doing temp runs the past month, but i have yet to time myself because i'm just trying to feel it out. my goal is to maintain 3 plate bench or better, 455 squat, and run a 40 minute 10k, but that is hauling ass for me. i ran xc but i wasnt much good.

[streetlegaltank]

i always imagine that i can come back to a ~40 minute 10k pretty quickly, but i'm 31 now and i'm probably lying to myself. i have been doing temp runs the past month, but i have yet to time myself because i'm just trying to feel it out. my goal is to maintain 3 plate bench or better, 455 squat, and run a 40 minute 10k, but that is hauling ass for me. i ran xc but i wasnt much good.

TFW you dominate in high school and suck in college.
mirin goals. How are your knees?