Hey Javier, I apologize for the bluntness in my message below. I have two issues with your post and I don’t know how to get them across in any better way.

1. I find it presumptuous of people who think they can interpret God’s intentions. If Genesis was inspired by God then I’d have to accept it as it is inspired, i.e. as it is written. You keep trying to teach us “how God meant his word to be” (Post 152) and “what God intended it to be” (Post 154). Excuse me, but where did you get this gift of reading God’s mind?

2. You are getting into this faith-versus-science argument in which you assume that science is trying to arrive at some anti-Biblical conclusions and that it has mud on its face because of all these so-called “gaps”. This view of science is totally wrong. Science is not the antithesis of religion. Charles Darwin, for one, was a religious man who certainly did not set out to disprove any Christian teachings. He was simply in search of knowledge, as all of us should be.

Faith is by definition a belief in something for which there is no proof. There is nothing wrong with faith, but newfound knowledge may from time to time disprove some of our long-held beliefs. When this happens some of us choose to embrace the truth, as Darwin did, while others choose to ignore the truth and live in denial.

Science is not faith. Believing in the big bang or any other unproven theory is faith, but respecting the scientific process and its logical conclusions is not faith. It is reality.

I don’t know how the universe was created. Maybe there was a big bang, and maybe not. What I do know is that the Genesis version of creation is not only full of “gaps” but also chockfull of flaws. And God does not inspire flaws.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 6/28/2010 01:50 am

Re post 153 - Hey Charles, as for genesis being a solid clincher for creation, I agree with you; it’s certainly not a blue print, but rather a quick synopsis for creation. I do believe God intended it to be that way for without faith it is impossible to please God. I have come to a realization that God did not inspire the book of genesis to prove his existence, but rather to let us know there is a complicated force behind all of creation. However, there is a scientific theory that does support genesis’s explanation; the Big Bang theory does suggests that the universe can be traced to a single point. I’m not a biologist or scientist, but I do know that there are many views depending on which scientist you talk to; not all scientist are on one accord when it comes to creation. The fact is that even today science is faced with many gaps and by leaving God out, many claims can be stretched against the biblical account for creation. Therefore, It’s evident for any belief one chooses to embrace, whether biblical or scientific, both require an enormous amount of faith. I respectfully accept anyone’s views on creation as an matter of where we place our faith. I certainly do not judge or convict anyone opposing my faith for that is not my job but that of God the creator: for those who doubts his very existence, this statement is no cause to be alarmed. As for me, at one point in my life I was a skeptical on the existence of God, but life’s curves and through age maturity I realized that whichever view I choose to believe, ultimately its basis is faith. Yes, there is evidence to support some of science theories, but there are also many gaps, so I choose not to focus on every detail that may or may not be, I rather focus on the creator him self.

Commentary by Javier Cavazos
Posted on: 6/23/2010 19:05 pm

Re post 152 - Dear Javier, I respect your opinion that there is a creating force behind everything and that this creative force may be God, but I don’t think it addresses my argument. What I’m saying is that the writers of Genesis lacked the most basic knowledge of the universe and therefore Genesis could not have been inspired by an almighty and omniscient God. Trying to get the story of creation from Genesis is like trying to learn a language from someone who doesn’t know how to read or write.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 6/22/2010 23:10 pm

Here is a response to post # 148 so as to challenge the concept that assigns no creator to the Heavens and Earth;. throughout all of our existence; all that has been made, considering only that which is “man made”, nothing has been made without a driving force behind it. For instance, the ancient Mayans built these huge pyramids that to this day intrigue us all to say wow what a driving force for creation. How were they able to build such complicated structures without the help of domesticated animals and most puzzling without the invention of the wheel? Henry Ford is credited as the creator of the automobile and the Wright brothers known for the creation of the ability for Humans to fly. I can continue but, you should by now know where I’m going with this. Let me ask you, what can you use as proof that was man made that did not have a driving force advocating its existence? To my knowledge, nothing has been made by man without someone willing it to be or actually doing it themselves. So I believe man made creation to be but a mere glimpse of a picture of how creation works. I’m not here to argue that science has it totally wrong because they may be correct on some of their finding. I am however, pointing out the fact that whether thru the process of scientific theory’s or other explanations; if we look for evidence into our own Human creation, it always points to a creating force behind it. I believe God to be that force for the Heavens and Earth and until someone can point to a man made creation that just appeared into existence, only until then will I ever toy with the idea of the creation of nature as just being a coincidence with no driving force behind it. As for the Word of God it is not complicated yet it is not easy to understand, and that’s why we find it confusing and questionable. However that is how God meant his word to be, for if it was easy as the book by Dr. Seuss Green Eggs and Ham there would be no need for God to ask that we seek and search his word.

Commentary by Javier Cavazos
Posted on: 6/22/2010 22:07 pm

The Christians belive the Bible to be the word of God and therefor take it to be true. If it is man’s fault to interpret and understand it correctly,why God and His word be blamed for it?

Man has shed blood not only for his religious beliefs, but for his struggle for powers, propoerty, women etc. How can I discard truth for reasons of man’s faults?

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 6/21/2010 01:47 am

Ref. post 149, here’s the difference between science and religion. In sience we start by making observations and testing all hypotheses in a continuing attempt to arrive at the truth. In religion it’s the opposite: we start with a declaration that we already know the truth and work backward trying to prove our beliefs to be correct. I believe the science way is the honest way.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 6/15/2010 01:00 am

For science also it is like this. Earlier it was maintained that the atom is indivisible, but we now have the atomic energy by dividing the atom.There are many things for which our understanding has changed a lot. Earlier dear Charles has agreed that there could be many possibilities to look at the creation of the universe. We keep learning. How much more it is difficult to know God and his mirculous workings?

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 6/14/2010 23:20 pm

Ref. post 147 and others.

For most of our existence most people were convinced that Earth was flat and those who argued otherwise were not treated kindly. Eventually most people accepted the fact that Earth wasn’t flat but still refused to believe that it was a mere planet that revolved around the sun. Those who argued otherwise were scorned, excommunicated, and burned at the stake. Today most people have finally had to accept the truth about the Earth’s rotation, but they still cling to the failed accounts of its creation. The creation controversy is no different from the previous two. Again the majority of people are much more comfortable hanging on to hand-me-down beliefs than accepting any evidence to the contrary.

I have read different versions of the first chapter of Genesis and always concluded that the sky stands above us like a dome, the stars are but tiny little lightbulbs, and the sun and moon were put there after Earth took its current, flat shape. That’s what the Holy Book clearly assumes. The defenders of Genesis keep doing their utmost to make it “right” but every time I read it I get totally convinced that its writers would have flunked a basic test in astronomy or geography. Why should I believe a book that got it all so wrong?

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 6/10/2010 15:13 pm

Reference post No. 11,13, 20 and some other posts made thereafter.

Charless fiott has raised some crucial points with regard to the Biblical account of creation as given in Genesis Chapter one; such as, how can there be evening and morning on the very first day without the Sun being already in place and the earth revolving on its axis and around the sun, as the sun, the moon and the stars were made on the forth day? How can the earth precede the sun? Based on the scientific knowledge, he has concluded that the Bible is not true. I was greatly disturbed at that, but I didn’t doubt what the Bible has to say. I believed that something must be wrong in our understanding of the text and kept on thinking on the matter. I just woke up at 3 AM on 10/06/10 and was found thinking on it. As I got some clues, I immediately wrote down and am now posting my comments, after being silent over the matter for a long time.

The Biblical account of creation doesn’t say when the water was made. It doesn’t say that the light was created on the first day. In fact, God is the Father of all lights and is himself light. (James 1:17), but that the light was commanded to shine in the darkness that covered the waters, suggesting that the light was already there.

Again the account says that the earth was formless (without order) and void (empty). It doesn’t however say that the heavens were so-formless or void. They were filled with all the celestial bodies like the galaxies, the starts, the sun, the moon and also angelic beings as well. The angels were there singing praises to God, when God laid the foundation of the earth (Job38:4-7). But in the account of Genesis, we do not find praises of the angels. Only God praises His own works of creation: It was good or very good. The man was now to praise His creator. Thus, this account doesn’t focus on laying the foundation of the earth- its initial creation.

When we come to the fourth day, we have the description of the Sun and the moon as bigger and lesser lights and the stars. The fourth day also starts with God commanding the lights (plural) to separate the day and the night. After that we have mention of making of the sun, the moon and the stars. Verse 16 reads as, “God made the lights”. But in Hebrew, a verb implies that an action is either completed or incomplete and the verb can be translated either as the past tense or as the past perfect tense in English. As her also the lights were commanded, it shows that they were already in place there. Verse 16 should thus read as “God had made tow lights,” suggesting that the sun, the moon and the stars were created earlier with the creation of heavens and the earth in the beginning, and not made on the fourth day! Even the water must have been created at that time.

God is the God of order. He would not create something that is formless (without order) and void (empty), but it would be beautiful. The condition of the earth as being formless and void is therefore the result of the judgment of God upon the earth in the pre-Adamite period. This may suggest the revolt of Lucifer the Satan. The Genesis account this speaks of the restoration of the earth making it habitable for Adam and eve- for humankind.

Thus, the order of the events seems to be: the creation of the heavens with all its celestial bodies and the earth in the absolute beginning; Destruction of the earth, making it desolate and without form and covered with the dense darkness; God restoring the earth and its environment for man to live in. This is done is seven days, by the command of God, except that Adam and Eve were made on the sixth day. As the Sun, the moon and the stars were already there, God had just to command the light/ lights to shine in the darkness. Thus the occurring of evening and morning could take place from the very first day.

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 6/9/2010 23:34 pm

Roland G certainly has the right to his opinions, but he has no right to change the Bible.

1. Genesis does not indicate in any way that “all three members of the Godhead Three played a role in creation”. There is no reference at all to “the other two”. This continues to be the case after the creation. Noah, Abraham and everybody else only prayed to, talked to, and feared one God.

2. Roland G’s definition of heaven is again contrary to the Bible. Genesis does not indicate in any way that the world is round and therefore heaven does not “surround” Earth, as he claims. Heaven in the Bible is always somewhere “up there”, as in the Babel story.

3. I agree with Roland G that “the earth took billions of years to shap and form” . . . well, I almost agree. In reality Earth’s shape and form are still changing. But this is not what Genesis says. Genesis says it was there (or created) in the beginning and then it took just a day or two for all the “shaping and forming”.

Why do people keep trying to alter the words of the Bible?

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/10/2010 00:47 am

“In the beginning”
This “beginning” differs from the “beginning” referred to in John 1:1 (God existed before the creation of angelic beings and, a fortiori, mankind). This “beginning” refers to that moment in time when God created all heavenly and earthly elements putting them into motion.

“God”
“Elohim,” in the original Hebrew tongue is plural to indicate that all three members of the Godhead Three(i.e. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) played a role in creation).

“created”
All of the elements which comprise the heaven and the earth were created.

“the heaven”
This “heaven” refers to an area of space of unknown perimerter surrounding the earth called the first heaven. The “heaven” where God and angelic creatures reside is referred to as the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2)

“and the earth.”
The earth took billions of years to shap and form. It did not instantly appear in a final shape or form as evidenced from Gen 1:2.

Commentary by Roland G.
Posted on: 5/9/2010 23:56 pm

Verse 1: This is the ground work for a relationship with the creator and his creation. I think that God, through Moses, is demonstrating His magnificence. Here is a being that spoke heaven and earth into being. God knew that man would fail, but He wanted man first, to know who He was, to let man know that he could have everything he could ever want if he depended on God. There is no question that God wanted fellowship with His entire creation.

Commentary by Bernard "Ben" Denis
Posted on: 5/8/2010 18:51 pm

In the begining,God created the heavens earlier,he thought of creating the earth when He saw the need for man,and decided to make all that man would need before making him as you will find out.Have you ever asked yourself where God was when creating the heaven & earth?

Commentary by Douglas 'kanye
Posted on: 5/7/2010 19:19 pm

Thank you Constant for your study and sharing with us all.

Every langauage has its own peculiarity. In Sanskrit Grammar,there are three persons, three numbers (Singular, plural and for two),three genders, eight cases and three tenses and in all cases there are different forms! Hebrew has its own peculiarities as well. You have said that the word Elohim denotes three, if we consider the Numbers in its grammar. Could you please explain this in detail or suggest some supportive material to look into?

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 5/6/2010 22:40 pm

A basic Study of the Book of Genesis

CHAPTER 1
“Ray-sheeth Bara Elohim Eth Ha-Shamayim we’th Ha’arets”. Gen.1:1 (In Hebrew)
Elohiym’s (God’s) wonderful creation
1. In the beginning (re’shiyth “ray-sheeth” Strong’s # 7225) God (Elohiym “El-o-heem” אֱלוֹהִים , אלהים, Strong’s # 430)
Elohiym (“El-o-heem” אֱלוֹהִים , אלהים,)
The divine name “Elohiym” is used in the Bible 2500 times; 35 times regarding the creation (Page No.46,47 The name above all names by Donstanton). Elohiym is the divine name of the Triunion God Almighty. In the original language Hebrew, the word Elohiym is an uni-plural form. In Hebrew language the plural form is three or more numbers. It means Elohiym is in plural as well as singular can appear in single person or three persons. Elohiym is the Trinity noun form of the Biblical definition which now we are believing and worshiping. Lord Almighty Elohiym is the Trinitarian God. All the ‘im’ ending noun forms are as uni-plural meaning in the original language. Such as the Lord Elohiym can appear as a single person and also in three different personalities. As now we are worshiping Lord the Father Yahweh, The Son Jesus Christ, and The Holy Spirit.
(240 times as plural name of “gods”, and twice to Ashtoreth – the goddess of the Zidonians. 1 Kig. 11:5, 33.)
created (Bara “Baw-raw” Strong’s # 1254) Gen. 1:1; 21,27,27,27, 2:3,4, 5:1,2,2, 6:7; Dut.4:32; Ps 89:12, 102:18, 25, 90: 2; 104:30, 148:5,Eccl.11:5; Isa.40:26, 41:20, 42:5, 43:1,7; 44:24; 45:12,18,18, 48:7,54:16,16; Jer.10:16; 31:22; Eze.21:30, 28:13,15; Mal.2:10; Jh. 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2)
Note:- It is very interesting that, if we study the word by word of this first verse as an original Language. For Creation act there are six Hebrew words are used in first Chapter Gen. also according the creation account referred in the Bible. They are Bara, Asab, Nathan, Yatser, Banah, Qanah (Bible for Spirit Filled Living Page 7).
Bara:-
The word “Bara” (“bah-rah” Strong’s # 1254) means in English created but in the Biblical Language it means only Lord Elohiym can accomplish this act; creation from nothing. It is exclusively used with God (Elohiym) as its subject, indicating that only God (Elohiym) can accomplish this activity. The word is used most often for creation of Universe (Gen. 1:1; 21,27,27,27, 2:3,4, 5:1,2,2, 6:7; Dut.4:32; Ps 89:12, 102:18, 104:30, 148:5, ; Isa.40:26, 41:20, 42:5, 43:1,7; 45:12,18,18, 48:7,54:16,16; Jer.31:22; Eze.21:30, 28:13,15; Mal.2:10, ) (BSB).
Asaw:-
The word Asab means “To make” or “To do” (asah “aw-saw” Strong’s # 6213)it is used of God’s creation Gen. 1: 7,16 25, 26; 2:2.
Nathan:-
The word Nathan means “To set” (Nathan “naw-than” Strong’s # 5414) Gen. 1:17
Yatsar:-
The word Yastar means “Form or Fashion” (yatsar “yaw-tsar” Strong’s # 3335) Gen. 2:7, Creation of Adam
Banah:-
The word Banah means “To make or Build” (banah “baw-naw” Strong’s # 1129) Gen. 2:22.
Qanah:-
The word Quanah means “posses or acquire” (Qanah “kaw-naw” Strong’s # 7069) Gen. 14:19.
the heaven (shamayim “shaw-mah-yim” Strong’s # 8064) and the earth (erets “eh-rets” Strong’s # 776). Ref.Job 38:4-5, Ps. 8:3, 33:6,9, 89:11,12; 90:2,102:25, 104:5,6,24; 136:5, Isa. 40:21,22; 42:5,44:24, 45:18, 66:1,2, John1:1-3, Acts 14:15, 17:24, Rom.1:20;Col. 1:16,17; Heb.1:2,10, 11:3; Rev. 4:11.
Hashamayim (Shamayim):-
The word Shamayim translated in the Bible as Heaven; but Shamayim also an uni-plural form meaning of three heavens. The only one word is in Hebrew language as representing about the Heaven, Constellation and the Atmospheric space of the earth. The Bible is also telling the three heavens 2nd Cori. 12:2, Deut.10:14, Eph.4:10, 1King. 8:27, Neh.9:6, Ps.115:16. (shamayim “shaw-mah-yim” Strong’s # 8064)
A. Shamayim (Heaven):- Is Kingdom of God dwelling. Lord Elohiym and all the Heavenly beings. Deut.10:14, Eph.4:10, 1King. 8:27, Neh.9:6, Ps.115:16.
Third heaven – home of the heavenly beings.
B. Shamayim (Constellation):- Stars and all the Solar system. (Groups of stars form patterns in the night sky, which are called Constellations. There are 88 known Constellations Whitaker’s World of Facts page21,22)
Second heaven – home of the sun, moon, and stars.
C. Shamayim (Atmospheric space):- It is the Atmosphere of the Earth as surrounding in the surface of the earth as six layers. It was created by Lord Elohiym at the time of creation is recorded by Him in Gen. 1:1, Job. 9:8, Ps. 104:2, Isa: 40:22 “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in”. Isa.42:5, 44:24, Jer. 10:12 etc.
First heaven – home of the birds and clouds Dan. 4:12.
Earth (erets “eh-rets” Strong’s # 776): -
This is my personal work of Gen. Study, only started. by AE Constant

Commentary by AE Constant
Posted on: 5/6/2010 04:08 am

That’s a loaded question but I’d say John 3:16. Yet, without the context of the rest of the Bible, it may seem to lose its significance.

Commentary by Jason
Posted on: 2/28/2010 23:01 pm

What verse in the Bible contains the plan of salvation

Commentary by sis gracellen
Posted on: 2/28/2010 21:54 pm

Ryan, that’s a very good question. I posted a comment in Genesis 6:13 that addresses your comments.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 10/22/2009 19:00 pm

Can i ask a question about the flood only being in one corner of the world. what then was the purpose of noah gathering all the animals? if i am to believe that the flood didnt cover the entire earth someone is going to have to shed some light on this.
thx

Commentary by Ryan Dittmann
Posted on: 10/22/2009 17:43 pm

I like it too bro. Haskins….He’s the One Who stepped out on nothing and created everything. Bless His Holy Name.

Commentary by Jason
Posted on: 10/18/2009 00:29 am

Well, Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. What a way to open the Word of God. What a plainness, yet what glory shines forth. God’s glory just shouts out at us as the Bible declares that he created the world. There is no other God not allah, not buddah. No it is Jehovah God. The God of heaven, the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. He is the God of Israel. He is the King of the universe, He is the king of kings and lord of lords. There is none as powerful as He. If we can get a hold of that in our daily lives. We would have every reason to put our faith and trust in Him. Trust in the Lord.

Commentary by Jordan Haskins
Posted on: 10/17/2009 04:31 am

Open Invitation: Read through the Torah in one year. Rabbinic & Messianic Jews read through the 1st 5 books in a year. Begin today (10/11/09) w/ Genesis 1. By sundown on Saturday (10/17/09) read Gen 1:1 - 6:8. I personally don’t plan on commenting on every verse, as this website recommends. Actually, I’ve already have commentaries posted on the 1st 9 chapters of Genesis. My 1st post on Gen 1:1 was #28 & my last was #124 (but that was a tangent). In the near future, I plan to focus on those Scriptures that are referenced in the 613 commandments. During my past commentaries I left a post under Gen 1:28. Check it out if you like. I might leave more postings after Gen chap 9 when/if inspiration strikes me.

Commentary by Terik Q
Posted on: 10/11/2009 12:38 pm

When I read the totality of Genesis Chapter 1, I am left virtually breathless at the realization of the “perfection” of all the elements “created” by God to provide this earth.
When I listen to the various and sundry “theories” concerning the origin of man, I am inevitably left with so many questions. It is like that all add up to “close” but no cigar. I am reminded of the analogy of a chimpanzee being set before a typewriter and just happening to type the Encyclopedia Britannica in its entirety. The absurdity of this supposition, in addition to the incalculable odds of such an event occurring, gives me great comfort in the wisdom of acknowledging a “Creator” (aka “God”) who got it right the first time around.
Our very limited forays into space, gathering information about planets like Venus, Mars or Jupiter, show us the impossibility of life, as we know it. While each of these offer certain aspects of the requirements to sustain life, they lack the exact combination of “ingredients” to foster life (as we know it) or to support any form of “humanity”.
How do I feel about the possibility of the existence of other “life” or “life forms”? In my mind, the jury is out on that question. The God that I know and serve is just SO awesome, that I do not feel qualified to offer any definitive answers to this question. Yes, I believe in angels, simply because I am a believer in His Word. And they are definitely a “different” life form, in several aspects. I do not find any specific pronouncement in Scripture that “WE” (the souls of the planet Earth) are the ONLY “creations” of God. If I actually believe in the infinite power of such an amazing “Creator”, it would be silly of me to speak on His behalf and declare that WE are the limit of His creation. Man IS ego, and the ultimate ego display is, in MY humble opinion, the man who believes that MAN is all that there is.
I have to be very honest here. I am going to say something that may well be blasted to pieces, but I can handle it. To ME, the most fascinating thing about God is that HE brought this world into existence, created MAN and then set him free to operate with FREE WILL.
Imagine creating a computer program from start to finish and then giving that program a little additional feature: the ability to go its own way…with no limits. LOL! Talk about the stuff that science fiction is made of! I believe that we live in a perfect duality. EVERY CHOICE presented to us has the capacity for GOOD or EVIL. Imagine the computer programmer “releasing” HIS program, with TOTAL FREEDOM to do what IT sees fit! Would it grow to take over the world to destruction or to the creation of a virtual heaven? The permutations of this thought are endless!
I honor and worship God for His boldness in creating us and turning us loose with this capacity known as “Free Will”.
The second thought that I have had, for a long time, must appear, on its surface, to be nearly blasphemous, and I trust that HE will straighten me out eventually, even if it takes eternity to do so.
The ONE solid requirement of God is TOTAL WORSHIP of HIM! HE makes no bones about being a very jealous God. Whenever WE, with our finite minds, attempt to “comprehend” GOD, with all of the inherent aspects of omniscience, omnipresence, etc., I (and I want to make it perfectly clear that I am solely responsible for what I am about to say…it is the product of my own mind!!!!) find God to be very sadly BORING! To simply KNOW ALL…from beginning to end, even to process an infinite number of possibilities, with total knowledge of REALITY, within the framework of the absolute non-existence of time….it simply leaves me a bit saddened.
I have heard so many descriptions of “heaven” and “eternity”, and, frankly, most of them are colored by our limited existence. History is filled with “great” spokesmen for God who have painted pictures of God and eternity that simply appeal to our flesh. It is like going to that great McDonald’s in the sky, or standing in front of a Las Vegas slot machine that only gives us winners.
We are here on Genesis, the very first Chapter, but I wish to direct the attention of you truly wonderful, thoughtful people to another portion of Scripture. This portion of Scripture has me utterly and totally stumped. And I find a terrible paucity of Biblical commentary concerning this. It is a very disturbing (to my mind) portion of Scripture, and I will end this long note by asking each of you to look at Isaiah, Chapter 66…specifically verses 19-24.
To cut to the chase here, my “problem” in these verses has to do with a “picture” of “us” in eternity gazing upon the souls (and their horrid condition) on a regular basis, in all of the horror of their sufferings and torments and yet, living in “heaven” in a state of total joy, with NO sorrow (hey, imagine if I had, from what I gather of these few verses, to regularly see some people in “hell”…I just can’t imagine that I would be so utterly blissful and perpetually happy.
Hey, if anyone can help on this, I will be forever grateful.
I haven’t had any replies in the past few days, so I truly hope that all of you are doing just wonderfully.
I humbly await your responses.
Stormer

Commentary by Jim Wilkes
Posted on: 9/5/2009 06:12 am

Okay! It is nice to see this group alive and kicking! I thank each of you for your warm, frank welcome. Did I mention that I am 62? But, the nice thing is that I am not one of those people who ever think age gives you the right to stop learning. Nice reply, Charles, and that is really the first time I have had a worthwhile retort to that.

There is something very important that I have learned over the years. I think that most people tend to see their “religious faith” in terms dictated by their upbringing.

It has always amazed me that some “white people” preach hatred against the Jews, forgetting or refusing to acknowledge that the Lord Himself was anything but white and totally Jewish.

When I think of all the paintings I have seen, especially the “famous” ones, even the best of the European Masters could not quite bring themselves to see Him correctly. In general, I don’t think people come to these conclusions deliberately. It is just that one becomes accustomed to certain things and they “become” “the truth” without any further thought. In using my example/thought of being in a win-win situation, Charles correctly expanded my horizons with his example, and I thank you for that

Okay, I am here now. I really started this with Genesis 1:1 and look what has happened so far. I have some thoughts and questions that I wish to present, and will do so as time permits. I have so many honest thoughts and questions regarding “creation”, but there is so much more beyond that, and I am thirsty to have my mind/soul challenged and so honored to have found this site!

Blessings upon you all!
Stormer (aka Jim)

Commentary by Stormerorlando
Posted on: 9/2/2009 22:08 pm

Hey Stormer, glad you could join us. My pastor graduated from Tenn. Temple in the late 60’s or early 70’s. First let me encourage you to get back in the battle. Lord knows it can be a struggle. Many times I think I know how the children of Israel felt when they came to Jericho (they were going in circles). But we must remember, we’re waiting for that final trumpet blow! There’ll be a shout, and we’ll enter that city! Until then my friend, just keep walking.

Jason W. Elder
Jaysun1980@hotmail.com

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 9/1/2009 23:52 pm

Stormer, thanks for your posting. I agree with you that this is a very civil debate.

First, let me clarify something. I don’t need exhaustive and undeniable scientific proof to believe in anything. If something can be touched by everyone in the same way, it’s real. If something can be expected to behave in a predictable manner, it is real. Light, darkness, heat, fever, wind…. all these are real because everybody experiences them more or less in the same manner. When it comes to abstract things such as everlasting life and purgatory and the 72 virgins, it’s a different story. Now people with different beliefs and I don’t think anybody has the right to say who’s right and who’s wrong until anything is proven to be right or wrong.

You wrote “This is really a cheap shot. But it IS LOGICAL. Better to place my “faith” in an unproveable thesis, ergo “God” and be right, than to be WRONG. The consequences can, literally, be eternal.”

It is NOT a cheap shot. It’s the “LOGICAL” part that I have a problem with. First of all, if your thesis is unproveable, how can you know it’s right? Secondly, believing in God just to be “on the safe side” is not safe but actually dangerous.

Let’s take the example of someone who is born in a strict Moslem world where he is expected to believe in God and follow the dictates of his church. These dictates may include strapping explosives around his waist and killing people. Now this guy is “playing it safe”, right? He doesn’t really want to kill people but he is afraid that if he doesn’t do “the right thing” he will burn forever in hell. He is following his thesis. He blows himself up because it’s better to place his “faith” in an unproveable thesis, ergo “God” and “be right”, than to be WRONG!

No, dear Stormer. I can’t buy your logic. I’d rather go with the flipside of what you said: IT IS BETTER TO BE RIGHT THAN TO PLACE YOUR FAITH IN AN UNPROVEABLE THESIS.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 9/1/2009 20:57 pm

Hello!
I have just finished reading (from #1 to #128) every post and I am very impressed by several things:
1. The general level of intelligence of each person.
2. The sincerity of personal beliefs.
3. Above all else, the relative civility maintained here.
It is so refreshing to be able to read so much and not be totally side-tracked by unending innuendoes, insults, etc., as is so common on so many sites. In other words, I feel like I am witness to some real adults having a genuine, spirited, open and honest debate.
I note that it has been a couple of months since the last posting, so I hope all of you have not gone away.
Just a few words about myself, by way of introduction. I am, first and foremost a Christian, and a very conservative one at that. I graduated from Tennessee Temple University in 1982, then managed to spend 20 or so years messing up my own life. Lots of reasons (excuses) for this, but I am finally inching my way back to the right path. I am a victim of “church fatigue”, and it has been a long time since I darkened the door of one;however, one step at a time. LOL! Think of this as “group therapy”!
Seriously, during the process of “listening” to the entire Genesis 1 debate, my mind was drawn to the following scripture:

8 ¶Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

While it is absolutely true that charity (Love) is the greatest among the weapons in the arsenal, it is, to my way of thinking, faith that drives us onward.

Actually, faith and hope are two items pre-packaged in every human soul. From the atheist to the most “godly” person that ever graced this planet, ALL had limitless supplies of faith and hope, for there is no distinction in the quality of these items. One does not need to ascribe to any particular creed or belief to possess exactly the same capacity for faith and hope. Like air, or gravity, all you have to do is simply be alive to partake of these qualities.

Obviously, it is the choices made in the application of these qualities that makes all the difference in one’s life.

From the moment one wakes up, there is an automatic faith in place. It might even be fair to use the terms of “presumption” or “assumption” (and, LOL!, we all KNOW about the old joke concerning assumption). But it is the nature of our humanity to live life on “auto-pilot”. Life is all about “hope”, and the faith that that “hope” will simply/naturally come to pass. We waste no brain cells comtemplating our hands….until one of them becomes injured…and then their value is foremost in our minds.
I never thought twice about my ribs…until I had the misfortune to fall and break 4 of them…and I soon learned to truly appreciate their function!
This is life. We are, we do, we live (99% auto-pilot), as we have a “norm” to guide us. We are given, often, the gift of “accidents” to help us focus on the details. Life, by its very nature, puts us in the position of usurping God’s place. We take for granted the “natural” as a normal condition of living.

I have to say that one who is truly consistent in preaching the doctrine of only trusting provable science should utterly deny the reality of electricity. It is. It exists. Yet it has NEVER been satisfactorily and properly explained “scientifically”. You hit the switch and, if there is a bulb in place, light appears.

To address the use of the above verses, I find the following, which really does address most of the reality (and the futility) of ever hoping to solve the “debate” over creation (or any other matter involving “God”).

Life is truly a continuum. It never (really) looks back…it just keeps flowing on. What was ceases to be and is replaced, either by a pale copy of the past or a bit of seemingly refreshing “modernism”, although I do subscribe to Solomon’s wisdom in Ecclesiastes:

Ecclesiastes 1:9 ¶The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

I do believe that God has a great sense of humor, I think that He must engage in laughter to the point of tears, watching “His” creations run around and around the same old tired arguments about creation, God, etc.

IF I am the epitome of all that really is, I really need to have a total meltdown and just have the decency to disappear. And, with complete respect to Charles, that is the bottom line of what you are saying. I hope that you are greater and wiser than any and all real or imagined ideas concerning God. Because, sadly, YOU are all that YOU have. If that is enough, then enjoy.

This is really a cheap shot. But it IS LOGICAL. Better to place my “faith” in an unproveable thesis, ergo “God” and be right, than to be WRONG. The consequences can, literally, be eternal.

Okay, just an introduction. You all are really great minds and spirits. I hope that I am not too late to the party. I will post this and see if any of you are still active.

Thanks for “listening”!
Stormer

Commentary by Stormerorlando
Posted on: 9/1/2009 16:28 pm

In Job 34:13 Elihu says,”Who hath given him charge over the earth?or who hath disposed the whole earth?”
Whom does the word”him” refers to in Job 34:13?
In the Bible of my mother tongue,I find that “him” is mentioned as “man”.
Please read that verse in the Amplified version(English).

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 7/20/2009 04:37 am

Reference post #124:

God is the giver of life. He gave life to Adam. All rights including the right to life originate from God, the giver of life. ( Life is so precious that God gave detailed rules for it’s preservation, for example, a roof must have a parapret to save life. (Deut. 22:8)) There are no rights apart from God, who is the final and original authority. God gave authority to Adam:”And God blessed them, and god said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it: and have dominion over……every living things upon the earth.” (Gen.1:28)Didn’t God endow Adam and Eve with full rights, all rights upon this earth? Man, by disobeying God, lost his authority to Devil, the father of all lies, the usurper of rights! God is now at work to restore all things through the redemptive power that is there in Jesus Christ our Lord.

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 7/18/2009 21:53 pm

1)”God is a Spirit:and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth.”These are the words of Lord Jesus Christ.-John 4:24.
Read 2 Cor.3:17.
2)”…God is light,and in him is no darkness at all.”1 John 1:5.
“That was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” John 1:9.
Jesus said:I am the light of the world:he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness,but shall have the light of life.” John 8:12.
3)”….God is love…..” 1 John 4:16.This is a powerful verse and actually it has changed my life.
“But God commendeth his love toward us,in that,while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 6/8/2009 08:20 am

Teriq, in post 124 you had your three strikes and I think you’re out

1. You said: Adam being created in the image of God is one of many reasons that support the command “Thou shalt not kill”. A person should not murder another because he is then destroying someone made in God’s image.

This is an absolute non sequitur. Murder is wrong in Biblical and non-Biblical cultures alike. Whether the victim is made in God’s image has no bearing whatsoever on this fundamental and universal law.

2. You said: There is a difference between murder of an innocent person versus killing a guilty person.

Ok. So tell me, what was the “firstborn of the slave girl who is behind the handmill” (Exodus 11:5) guilty of? Why did God murder her child and so many other innocent children?

3. And finally you said this: I still conclude that the Bible is clear that there are rights such as a right to life.

And your conclusion is based on…..!!!??? You’re clutching on straws here. You have been unable to come up with any passage in the Bible that is “clear” about the right to life or the right to free speech or the right to anything. Neither can the ACLJ or anybody else, because it’s simply not there. I’ve read the Bible several times and I can assure you of this: the Bible is NOT about rights.

Three strikes!

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/25/2009 15:47 pm

Once more unto the breach…
I hope this will be my final post on this issue. So I’ll try to be clear as mud
1. Adam being created in the image of God is one of many reasons that support the command “Thou shalt not kill”. A person should not murder another because he is then destroying someone made in God’s image.
2. God did command killing, but not murder. The proper translation of the command is “Do not murder”. There is a difference between murder of an innocent person versus killing a guilty person. There are others that can explain this better than I, for example: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html
3. My post #113 may have been confusing. My mind tends to switch tracks and my writing often reflects that. I began on the subjects of rights, but then I switched to freedoms. In later posts I offered the ’supporting witness’ of ACLJ who I mostly agree with. They are the ones who wrote that “religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights”. These people are Christian lawyers who I trust know how to defend this. The Bible does give believers the Great Commission; in order to fulfill it we need freedom of speech. There are many terms we currently use that can’t be found in the Bible (such as Trinity), but we can use reason/facts based on Biblical principles.
Finally, I still conclude that the Bible is clear that there are rights such as a right to life - it is I who is not clear on explaning it.

Commentary by Terik Q
Posted on: 5/25/2009 14:45 pm

Dear Teriq, I think we’ve been getting off the subject of Genesis 1:1, but you keep bringing arguments that baffle my logic. In post 122 you said the following:

“This command [Thou shalt not kill] can be combined with other verses such as Adam being made in the image of God. When verses with related issues are combined, one can use reason to reach certain conclusions: The command against murder along with other verses provide proof that life is precious to God and show that God gives everyone everytime everywhere right to life.”

First of all how is the creation of Adam in the image of God related to the fifth commandment? I just fail to understand any relationship at all. Please explain.

Second, we find many instances in the Bible where God commands His followers to kill their enemies. There is an instance in Exodus where God himself becomes the killer of innocent children (Exodus 11:4-5). Also, capital punishment seems to be a casual thing for God. According to the Bible even the offense of working on the sabbath is punishable by death (Exodus 31:14). So I just can’t see where you get this idea that life is precious to God or that He “gives everyone everytime everywhere right to life”.

In other recent posts you have insisted that freedom of speech and religious freedom are “God-given” rights. I have already pointed out that nowhere in the Bible does God specifically give us any right to freedom of speech (if you disagree with this, let me know). Let me add that God does not grant freedom of religion either. On the contrary He often orders his followers to destroy temples, religious icons, and people that do not honor Him. So where do you get the idea that religious freedom is a right given to us by God?

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/22/2009 13:29 pm

I’m no lawyer, that’s why I gave the link to ACLJ. Those who want answers about law & religion should ask people who study & work on that issue. (On another note, those who want answers about creation and young earth should check out Answers In Genesis). Following is my brief understanding regarding law in the Bible:
Biblical commands can be put into categories of moral, cultural/national, and ceremonial/sacrificial. Kosher laws, for example, might be ceremonial because one had to be clean to offer a sacrifice. And although we don’t sacrifice animals, there is a principle behind the law that we need to be aware of: Christ (innocent) provided the sacrifice for us (guilty). Many laws are BASED on principles from Scripture. There are also cultural laws that were meant only for ancient Israel. Yes - some laws are only for a certain people during a certain time and in a certain situation & place. Moral laws are the ones that we pay the post attention to. One of the most famous being “Thou shalt not kill”. This command can be combined with other verses such as Adam being made in the image of God. When verses with related issues are combined, one can use reason to reach certain conclusions: The command against murder along with other verses provide proof that life is precious to God and show that God gives everyone everytime everywhere right to life.

Commentary by Terik Q
Posted on: 5/22/2009 11:22 am

Teriq, where in the Bible does God give us any rights?

God gives us commandments and strict rules about what to eat and who to sleep with and how we spend the sabbath. At one point Jesus goes as far as giving certain rights to Caesar, of all people. But I can’t find any specific instance in the entire Bible where God gives me the right to free speech.

What is meant by the term “god-given rights” is the expectation that a free society has from its government. It usually includes free speech but it can also mean anything anybody wants it to mean. It’s a poltiical term, not a religious one. We expect and, sometimes, get rights from the government. God does not give us rights.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/20/2009 19:01 pm

Regarding faith & fact and church & state: It might help to check out the site American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) at http://www.aclj.org/Default.aspx
Quote from the site: “The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C. The ACLJ is specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights. The Center’s purpose is to educate, promulgate, conciliate, and where necessary, litigate, to ensure that those rights are protected under the law. The organization has participated in numerous cases before the Supreme Court, Federal Court of Appeals, Federal District Courts, and various state courts regarding freedom of religion and freedom of speech.”

Commentary by Terik Q
Posted on: 5/20/2009 15:56 pm

Re post 118. Jason, I know you weren’t saying I was gay and I have no reason to be touchy about the subject. My point was that we should not be mean to people simply because they are different from us or because of what they believe or do not believe. We need more tolerance and respect here and in all aspects of our lives.

The other point I’d like to make is that there is no such thing as a god-given right. It’s just a meaningless phrase. So-called god-given or natural rights are simply whatever one wants to make out of them. Some gun owners say it’s a god-given right to own a gun. Abortion advocates and school prayer advocates alike may invoke the same phrase to advance their causes, but it doesn’t mean anything. The only real rights we have are those that are legislated and enforced. Everything else is rhetoric.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/20/2009 13:43 pm

Oh, I wasn’t saying you were queer. Sorry if you’re a little touchy about the subject.

Commentary by Jason
Posted on: 5/20/2009 00:08 am

Well, Jason, since I’m not gay I cannot take your comments personally. However I can see you’re a man with no compassion and with cruelty in your heart.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/18/2009 22:00 pm

RE #114
For once I agree with Chuck’s interpretation of Scripture. The best kind of homosexual is a flaming homosexual.

Commentary by Jason
Posted on: 5/18/2009 20:45 pm

Our forefathers did not confer any rights on us. They were simply recognizing the rights which God had already given man. Governments are instituted, at least ours was, to maintain and preserve those God-given rights.

Plenty of legislating is being done from the bench (although, that’s not the way its supposed to be).

Commentary by Jason
Posted on: 5/18/2009 20:43 pm

Regarding Post #113

The statement “Rights come from the Creator and they are (supposed to be) protected by the judicial system” couldn’t be more wrong. It’s Congress that makes laws - not the judicial system, and certainly not God. And though we in the United have a Judeo-Christian tradition, Congress gives rights that the Bible doesn’t. For example under US laws gays are starting to enjoy certain rights. The Bible does not give gays any rights. On the contrary the Bible says that gays should be punished by death.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/18/2009 18:41 pm

Regarding Post #111 “faith has nothing to do with the judicial system”:
Laws in the US are based on Judeo-Christian principles. In God we trust. From the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Rights come from the Creator and they are (supposed to be) protected by the judicial system. Even though I find Bill Maher and the late George Carlin humorous, they have spoken against religion in general and Christianity in particular. Carlin has said that people should keep their religion to themselves and Maher has gone so far as to say it should be outlawed (I hope he was joking). They have their freedom of speech, but they seem to forget that there is also the freedom of religion. And those two freedoms can be combined: I have the freedom to speak about my religion. I recently heard a replay of Carlin’s routine where he got rid of the Ten Commandments and replaced them with two (maybe three). However, Jesus already gave us the two greatest commands.
Finally I find it interesting when Biblical authors, such a Paul, write about faith. Paul was an eyewitness to his personal vision and also had reliable testimony from Apostles and other friends. Why did he promote faith when he had facts? Perhaps there is a connection - we need facts AND faith.

Commentary by Terik Q
Posted on: 5/18/2009 15:53 pm

My brother is currently a policeman. My father was a law enforcement officer as well as my grandpa and 2 or 3 uncles. So I don’t have much of a problem viewing the Lord as a policeman. I don’t resent your comment but wonder if resentment of authority is the root of your belief problem/issue/agnosticism/whatever.

As for keeping the thread polite, if I’m the worst you have to put up with, you should be thankful.

Commentary by Jason
Posted on: 5/17/2009 21:08 pm

Re. Post 110:

I am not an atheist, but I were I would resent being compared to a thief. Please keep this thread polite.

Also I don’t know if there is a god, but if there was I sure hope I wouldn’t think of him as a policeman!

And, finally, faith has nothing to do with the judicial system. Thank goodness the inquisitions and the witch trials are over. Only in places like the Swat Valley do they still bring god into the courtroom.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/17/2009 20:20 pm

Is Faith “proof” in the courtroom sense? No. But Faith is substantial “evidence” according to Heb 11:1. And evidence is used to bring a conviction.

Jurors are faced with the task of determining a person’s guilt beyond “reasonable” doubt.

Some are dismissed from jury duty because they are deemed unfit, unreasonable, or plainly biased. The same is true for many who weigh in on the faith issue.

2Peter 3:5 speaks of those with obvious bias against creation.

“Willingly…ignorant…” means they’re stupid on purpose, not that they lack the ability to understand. The fact is, the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.

Commentary by Jason
Posted on: 5/17/2009 19:45 pm

Faith is opinion. Even if there is a god, one can never know what kind of god he or she or it is. And why only one god? And why the god of the Bible? Who’s to say that Christians got it right and everybody else got it wrong? Are you appointing yourself the judge of mankind? Are Moslems doomed because they don’t follow the Bible? Are Hindus doomed because they believe in several gods? Are most Chinese doomed because they believe in no god? Faith is a set of shallow, passed-down traditions that vary from place to place. Science, on the other hand, is universal. Faith is, by definition, unproved. Science is, by definition, the truth.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/17/2009 19:02 pm

Evolution: Nothing + Explosion = Everything

Creation: God + His Word = Everything

BOTH REQUIRE FAITH

And I’m sure there’ll be a red shift when you slip off into Hell too.

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 5/17/2009 17:55 pm

Science will never be in a position to state about what could be the first or ultimate cause. it has its own limitations.It has no absolute truth. For me Jesus is the way, life and truth! Facts may change, but Faith never gives in!

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 5/17/2009 16:49 pm

Re. Post 105. Your questions are about theory, not fact. Yes, sure you can theorize that there must have been a god. You can theorize that this god had no beginning. You can theorize that this god was a someone who amazingly looked like you and me, or that it was a someTHING - like some primordial matter which then exploded (big bang theory). I have an open mind on all of these. None have been proven wrong or right and therefore I can’t dismiss any of them.

All I can say is that the few things that we DO know to be true (e.g. the world revolves around the sun) have their foundation in science, NOT in the Bible. All I can say for sure is that the truth about the universe resides in the scientific process, not in Genesis.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/17/2009 14:35 pm

Reference post 104;
Does any theory of science endorses why sun, moon and stars were made on the fourth day as stated in Genesis? Does anything at least make you believe in the existence of God? Say that there is no explaination for the “first cause’? Is it not mind boggling how has all the universe come into existence? The creation may be changing, but not under the process of creation. So there was no way to to know the first cause for the people who believes in science and science only.

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 5/17/2009 13:52 pm

Well, again, Jayant, that’s where we agree and disgree at the same time. The big bang theory is just that, a theory. So are many other hypotheses. Science doesn’t know how the universe got started, or whether it ever did. But we do know this FOR SURE: the “creation” of the universe is NOT complete. We are witnessing the creation of new stars and new planets (IN THAT ORDER) even as we speak. I know such discoveries are nothing but a nuisance to you, but to me they totally bust the seven-day-creation myth.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/16/2009 19:31 pm

Reference # 102: Well, there are many questions to which we have no answers. One of the prominent scientific theories that tries to explain the creation of the Universe is the Bibg bang theory. we have wait for a successful experiment to prove it. In case, it is is believed that our Universe has a bigining. Something came out from nothing for reason unknown.This can only be attributable to something responsible out of our natural realm. We can say it supernatural. Do we know what that supernatural was? what was the first or ultimate cause? This leads me to believe it could be eternal God only. If god is the first cause and the creator, he can create first earth and then sun or vice versa. he can even create moon first, then star and then earth and then sun! I mean god is almight and he can manage any order of the events. the Genesis account even doesn’t say when the water was created! There was darkness! Could it be what is called black hole? We simply do not have all answers. But I beileve in God and that He is the creator and I am quite comfortable with that. Can man get to know Hom by searching?Let me be clear:I cannot win by arguments. and if I starts to argue as you do, even you would also not succeed. I rely on Faith on my God!

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 5/16/2009 14:46 pm

Re post 101. Jayant, I am not trying to sway you away from your faith. Nor do I have any right to do so. Yes, on one hand I do feel that you could be more open to other opinions and not dismiss them outright. But on the other hand I have to note that you seem to respect the people who disagree with you. Let me say that I also have a lot of respect for you and for your faith even though I see things differently. Vive la difference!

Back to the subject of this thread, I still feel that Genesis 1:1 (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth) is a false statement because it clearly means that our planet was created before its own star.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/16/2009 12:14 pm

Reference to post# 96:

Charles, in fact, I don’t want support for the Bible from other traditions, for to me the Bible is the tradition form the living God, that He is the real source of it. This is my faith. You say that there is no evidence of great flood outside of Asia. It is to answer that the Hawiian tradition has come in, just to suggest that that even extra biblical sources suggest that there was a world wide great flood. But you alwasys want archeological evidences for it. I said that the flood was so great that it swept away everthing leaving no evidence of it everywhere. Absence of some archeological evidences cannot prove that a certain even of the Bible never happened. i also therfore pointed out that the archeologists have not foound any traces of exodus route, as they have seem to have concentrated their excavations in wrong sites! Thus, absence of archeologcal evidence cannot dispprove the the Bible. Maybe such evidences can be found later on? for us to get confimation? Shall I then stop believe till such evidences are available? There are certain things in spiritual level that are not verifiable by the science. I said almost all the culture of all time there are lot of stories and experiences about ghosts, but it is beyond science to verify it. Even the life is still mystery, but one would not say that there is no life. so there is much more in the spiritual world beyond the scope of science. And since there are evil spirits, there are good spirits and the highest is God.God is beyond the verification of science, only the faith gets hold of Him! God loves us all! Sorry no archeological evidence! But the evidence is that the Lord Jesus, the Son of God gave His life for the remission of sins of many like me and you included! Yes, the cross on the calvary is the proof of God’s love for humankind!

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 5/15/2009 23:38 pm

100th Post!
Answers In Genesis has a website that offers some answers to questions that have been posted regarding Flood & Creation. The article below is The Mystery of Ancient Man. If that doesn’t help, try searcing the site. Or you can also use the contact option to ask a specific question.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/ancient.asp

Commentary by Terik Q
Posted on: 5/15/2009 19:43 pm

A bulldog can whip a skunk, but its just not worth it. “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;” (Titus 3:10)

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 5/15/2009 18:19 pm

When people resort to insults they have lost the argument.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/15/2009 17:53 pm

RE: 96

“God is light” you mental midget. (1John 1:5)

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 5/15/2009 17:50 pm

Re post 94 by Jason: Since there was no electricity yet, light could only come from the sun or some other star. But, according to the Bible, all stars were created after the trees and the grass. So this is clearly false.

I am glad you recognize that the light from stars take more than 6,000 years to reach us. Millions of years, actually. So it follows that the stars were created millions of years ago. How do you reconcile this with Genesis? Do you think that the fourth “day” of creation actually lasted millions of years?

Re Post 95 by Jayant. Jayant, you said “no amount of archeologiacl evdences can move me from my faith in the Bible as the sure word of God.” This means that your arguments are not bona fide. You have stated that you will dismiss archaeological, scientific, and all evidence no matter how reliable and factual they might be.

Instead you seem to take solace from legends that are similar to the Bible. So does that make the Bible just another source of legends? Does it mean that there were several other “Noahs” around the world besides the one of the Bible? That several other families in Hawaii and elsewhere were also spared by God? What do these legends mean to you and why are they more believable than science?

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/15/2009 17:47 pm

Reference post # 94 by Charles:

There are many dismilarities between the Biblical record and the Hawiian legends. Some of the names of their gods are given in their tribal language. (although the name Nu-u resemble the name of Noah. It is therefore unlikely that missionaries who got the tradtions form the local tribes could have fabricated the stories. What they have done at the most is the comparision of the the biblical record and the traditions of local tribes. Many things that have come down to us is by way of oral traditions.Since the great flood was so sweeping that it might not have left anything for the excavations by the archeologists to provide some evidence for the scientists. One can not rule all these possibilities.

I have made mention of the possibilites of pre-Adamite race. This is also believed by Islam, I think. Archeology has so far not found any remains of human race that are earlier than say 5,000 + years. Well, they do show that that the age of the rocks, tress etc are older than that. You have cited the example of the Stonehenge Structure, where the age of the stoene used may be more, but not necessarily of the structure made out of such stones. One can not rule out possibilities of all such things. In that case, to say that the record of Genesis is ridiculous os not correct. What I try to say that the archeological evidences are subject to other possibilities and need not be taken as final.

I belong to a Church of local evangelical assemblies whose founder was late Brother Bakht Singh, a convert from Sikhism. He was once asked, “Do you believe that the fish swallowed Jonah?” He answered,” I do believe that;” and added, “And had the Bible even said that Jonah swollowed the fish, I would have believed that too!” I too am one such fool for my God, and no amount of archeologiacl evdences can move me from my faith in the Bible as the sure word of God.

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 5/15/2009 08:47 am

Trees, plants, etc. were created prior to the sun but not prior to light. In fact, light was created before the luminaries. As you well know, after only 6,000 years, the light from distant stars would still not have reached us, otherwise.

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 5/14/2009 23:28 pm

True, the methods used to determine the dates of fossils are far from precise. But they usually give a good indication. More often than not newer methods give fossils and rocks an even older date. So when scientists estimate a date at 40,000 to 60,000 years old one can rest assured that it is either close to that age or older.

The Hawiian legends are interesting, but apparently they were written in the 19th century after missionaries had gone there and preached the Bible. We find the same thing in Australia and other places. It is easy to see how traditional stories and new teachings can get mixed. For example I also read about a legend that says it was a fire that killed everyone in Hawaii before it was repopulated. So it seems that the new Christians of Hawaii conveniently merged the two stories into one.

I do not hasten to state that the Bible is false. In my opinion many accouts in the Bible are true or likely to be true, while many others - especially in Genesis and Exodus - are highly unlikely or doubtful. I have only used the word “false” in a few instances where it is obvious, like for example having the trees and the grass created prior to the creation of the sun.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/14/2009 16:06 pm

Further comments on post# 91 by charles:

There is what is called a gap theory. The earth was void and without form-in a state of utter chaos. God, who creates by the power of His word, would not create something that is full of chaos. It is therefore thought that there was a pre-Adamite race which was destroyed and then man was created. But this is after all a theory. Again, the cabon method used to determine the dates of fossils/rocks etc is not agreed upon by all the scientists equally.

We have to confess our ignorance about many things. Jason has now pointed out the Hawiian legends of Nu-u! This goes to suggest that there are traditions of a great flood that has affected even outside Asia. There were reports of fossils of fishes found on the Mt. Himalaya. Could it be becuase of the great flood when the highest moutanins were submerged?

As for the exodus route, the excavations seems to have been carried out all in a disputed places. I have also visited Mount Sinai and the St.Catherine Monastary in Sinai Peninsula. This site was also determined by St. Helena, mother of Constinople and the Church has traditionally accepted the site as of Mt. Sinai. This seems to be have been done without taking into account the Biblical record. Now it is suggested that the site of Mt. Sinai is not in Sinai peninsula, but in Saudi Arabia and evidences to that effect are also given, and it is consistant with the biblical record. How can the archeology find anything if they try to to find in the wrong place! I am therefor not inclined to accept finality of anything on the basis of archeology. This does not however mean that I don’t altogether believe in the benefits of the archeology. so even with the vast knowledge available at the click of our mouse, we have to confess our ingnorance of many things and should not hasten to say that the Bible is false.

I have just pointed out the refernece from the Bible that the divisions of the earth took place in the days of Peleg, after the food. The incidence was so remarkable that the son was named Peleg9 division and a reference to the incidence is made in the ancient record of the geneology.

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 5/14/2009 13:00 pm

For evidence outside Asia of great flood, google Hawaiian legend of Nu-u.

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 5/13/2009 22:12 pm

Jayant, some things we agree on, but our conclusions are way apart. Per the genealogies of the Bible a powerful flood occurred between 2,000 to 3,000 BC. I agree with that. We find references to a great flood outside the Bible as well. So, I agree that a big flood did happen. But there doesn’t seem to be any written or archaeological evidence about any exceptional flood outside of Asia. So the argument that the flood was worldwide is very weak.

We also seem to agree that at one point there was basically only one big landmass in the world. All scientists will agree with you on that. However you seem to imply that the division of this landmass into several continents occurred after the flood. No scientist will agree with you on that. The division happened long before the appearance of humans and probably before the appearance of any living creature.

I also agree with you that it is difficult to be sure about the dates estimated by archaeologists. They can be off quite a bit. But I think the claim that Australia has been inhabited for 40,000+ years is quite believable. It makes sense when you study the migration patterns of humans in prehistory. If you believe the National Geographic Magazine, the human race has been around in one form or another for well over a million years.

You talked about the disputes regarding the route of exodus of Israel from Egypt in the context of archaeological finds. However, no serious archaeologist has found any trace of this route. In fact there aren’t even any written records other than the Bible. There is no evidence whatsoever to the Exodus story.

Charles

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/13/2009 21:41 pm

This has a reference to the posts # 86 and 88 by Charles.

It is very difficult to be sure about the differnt historical dates. There are always some disputes about the acheological findings.For example, the route of exodus of Israel from Egypt are disputable and differnt routes are suggested and evidences are offered. Again, in the case of Australia,its booklet about citizenship says that the continent was inhabitated for some 40,000 to 60,000 years! I don’t know what could be the basis of its calculation, but it is something unbelievable. In India, there was an ancient culture at Mohan-Jo-Daro which some 5,000 year old. It seems we have so far traced the human inhabitant for some 5,000 to 6,000 years and not beyond.If we consider the geneology of Genesis, with some overlapping of the age of different persons, the great flood seems to have come some time in the first one to two thousand years, that is 2,000 to 3,000 BC. Well, i am not that pacca in this study. Nothing is final so far as the archeological date setting is concerned.

How can there be people in the other parts of the world before and after the great Flood? In Genesis 10:25 we read, “And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg: for in his days was the earth divided.” The language seems to speak about some great earthquake that brought about the great geological changes in the earth. If we look at say USA and Africa, one can see that they must be one land some time. Australia could well be accommodated in the Pacific ocean and so on. With these division of the earth after the flood, the people must have survived to live in different blocks of land so formed.At the of creation there must be just one big block of land that was divided as aforesaid. Earlier i have pointed out that in the ancient book of Hinduism called Manusmriti, there is a reference to Manu sailing on the flood water as a sole survivor.In China also they have some story of of great flood. With all these extra Biblical traditions, we should have the reason to believe in the great flood.

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 5/13/2009 17:30 pm

Jason, the evidence is overwhelming. Let’s take Stonehenge as an example. This is not the best example, just one of many. Here we find continuous activity starting with a circular ditch built around 3,000 BC followed by the stone network in ca. 2,500 BC and later refinements going to 1,500 BC or so. Now we don’t know when the Great Flood occurred but if you follow the genealogy of the Bible you have to conclude that it happened around 2,000 BC when Stonehnge was the height of its activity. If the Great Flood was worldwide, don’t you think there would be a halt in this activity? Do you believe the descendents of Noah would have gone to Stonehenge to continue building it along the same Pagan lines?

Just a few other examples. The Chinchorro people of Chile started mummifying all their dead circa 5,050 BC and continued to do so until 1,800 BC, again straddling the Great Flood. The Egyptian dynasty continued unabated through the Great Flood, as did the Chinese one. Vast areas around the world were totally unaffected by the flood that apparently happened only in western Asia.

This is what I mean when I say that there were people around the world both before and after the Great Flood. The Chinchorros, the Chinese kings, the Egyptian emperors, the Alaskan fishermen, the Australian aborigenes and so on and so forth - none of them was affected by the Great Flood of the Bible. Their genaalogy continued uninterrupted and therefore none of them could possibly be descended from Noah

Life didn’t stop and start again as the Bible tells us. Well, perhaps in the Bible area it did, but the Bible area is only one tiny corner of a rather big and diverse world.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/11/2009 23:25 pm

Its “good” to know what the other persons’ views are when discussing the Bible. You may not be a bible believer, but I am. That’s just a fact. Its not meant to intimidate, demean, or otherwise be “holier-than-thou” etc.

But I don’t put much stock in internet scholars. I’ve investigated many “claims” of errors, contradictions, etc. in the Bible and have found them all to be lies. Thus, past experience leads me to believe that your alleged “evidence” is erroneous as well.

Nevertheless, I am curious as to what evidence ’specifically’ you speak of ie. Locations and Dates of peoples living contemporary with the deluge.

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 5/11/2009 21:34 pm

Jason, can I ask you to be more objective? If you say scripture trumps and I say science trumps neither one of us will have gained anything from the discussion, will we? In order to positively participate in a discussion you have to be ready to argue on the merits rather than on a self-serving holier-than-thou attitude. The evidence comes from archaeological remains of people who lived in various continents (e.g. Africa and South America) long before Noah.

Let’s reason things out. Evidence shows that these people continued to live in these continents throughout the Biblical period. They were not destroyed by any flood. So how could they possibly be descendants of Noah?

Jayant, I pose the same question to you.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/11/2009 19:45 pm

Yes, we read of decendants of Adam in the geneology of Genesis 5. so there were lot of people before the flood came. Genises 10 gives the geneology, where so many people are named who came down from the three sons of Noah. so there were lot of people after the flood. So the Bible also says that as explained above, there were lot of people before AND after the flood. Where is then the need to look for some scientific evidence for that?

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 5/11/2009 16:41 pm

in the discussion of Genesis 1:1, we now and again read about science and religion. Religion has to do with faith and science deals with the known and proved facts only. Religion is for men. No baffalo has ever come to be known as Saint baffalo! No union of of goats has ever built a temple to worship God.But there is something within men that lead them to worship God. Even the most primitive men worshiped something some way, but no horse or dog ever do that.For men faith suffices.

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 5/11/2009 16:34 pm

I’m not sure what you mean by “equating.” The flood was literal yet has spiritual application to us today. Just to be clear. The Bible teaches a world wide flood, not in just one corner of the world, wherein only 8 people were left alive on earth.

As for “evidence” to the contrary, Scripture always trumps science (falsely so called) but I am interested in what evidence you speak of. thanks

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 5/11/2009 14:17 pm

Thanks, Jason. You’re equating survival of the flesh with salvation of the soul. And that’s fine. But the Bible leaves no doubt that it was referring to physical survival. It clearly indicates that at the end of the flood there were no people alive other than Noah and his family. Only eight people in just one corner of the world! That’s what the Bible says. But now we have have plenty of hard evidence that people lived across earth both before AND after the flood.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/11/2009 14:12 pm

Typical Principle
People, places, & things in Scripture often bear resemblance to certain biblical truths. The Ark, for instance, is a type of Christ or Salvation.

It was the only means of Salvation.
It’s shelter was open to all - but not always open.
There was only one door
They were shut in…

Well, I think you get the point.

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 5/11/2009 03:26 am

Jason, I’m not sure if I understand your comment on post 79. Can you elaborate please?

Thanks

Charles

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/10/2009 18:46 pm

Wait, people don’t believe that only 8 people survived the flood? To say the least, that would do much damage to the typical principle (salvation wise) if people survived outside the ark.

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 5/10/2009 04:54 am

Ref:Commentary No.51
Charles,it seems you are not at all an analyst.

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 5/5/2009 12:56 pm

Alex over the course of this thread I made several arguments about the authenticity of Genesis. In particular I have explained why I believe the genealogy of the Bible is scientifically erroneous (by millions of years), why the sequence of creation is scientifically flawed, and why the claim that Noah and his family where the only humans alive after the flood doesn’t hold any water (excuse the pun). You never addressed my arguments. What you don’t understand is that, deep down, I really wish I were wrong, however your failure to debate only sustains my feeling that my arguments are quite solid.

Is there anyone else who wants to seriously discuss these issues?

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/4/2009 18:16 pm

Thank you for your nice comments,Jeyant Christian.
Jeyant,We believe Heb.11:3.”Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,so that things which are seen were made of things which do appear.”
“I know whom I believed.” 2 Tim.1:12.We know our Saviour.We are having personal knowledge of our Lord as we are having living relationship with Him.
We believe that the Bible is inspired by God.2 Tim.3:16.
We know the Power of God’s Word.Heb.4:12.”For the word of God is quick, and powerful,and sharper than any two edged sword,piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,and of the joints and marrow,and is a discerner of thoughts and intents of the heart.”
Charles has surprisingly accepted that a significant flood has occurred but he has not the mind to accept what the Word of God says about the flood.I think he has not the full details of the Babylonian flood.He is just making argument.Actually he is having questions about who were the survivors.The benefit of doubt must go to the document (Bible)itself.He has to accept the Genesis account of Flood.If he has not accepted it,we need not bother about it.He has to give account of himself to God one day just all of us have to do.
Jesus Christ has himself mentioned about the flood of Noah’s time.It was a warning message.Matt 24:37-39.:-”For as in the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of Son of man be.For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking,marrying and giving in marriage,until the day that Noe entered the ark.And knew not until the flood came,and took them all away;so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”
Luke 17:26,27.”And as it was in the days of Noe,so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.They did eat,they drank,they married wives,they were given in marriage,until the day that Noe entered the ark,and the flood came,and destroyed them all.”
There is another warning message in 2 Peter 3:6,7:Whereby the world that then was,being overflowed with water,perished;But the heavens & the earth, which are now,by the same word are kept in store,reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”
We read about Noah’s flood in 1 Peter 3:20.”Which sometime were disobedient,
when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah,while the ark was a preparing,wherein few,that is ejght souls were saved by water.”
We find Noah in the list of heroes of faith in Hebrews.”By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet,moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of the house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.” Heb.11:7.

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 5/2/2009 13:46 pm

Thanks, Jayant. I respect your views. But we know that there were people living in various parts of the world BEFORE and AFTER the flood, so the Genesis story cannot be right.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/2/2009 12:57 pm

To Charles the Babylonian Tablets are true, but the Bible account of Noah is false! He has also cited the tradition of flood of European Rivers. I also know of the Hindu tradition in India that says that there was a great flood and Manu alone travelled in a boat on the flood waters. Some such similar tradition is also there in China. Well, you can say that since the Indian tradition has Manu as the person who survived, the Bible is false, as it gives the name Noah. However,after the flood, people migrated to various parts of the world. (the Indian histroy teaches that Aryan came to India some five thusand years ago from Middle Asia.)So different tradtions exist telling of a big flood. It goes to indicate that the Bible account is not mere fable. In any case, for science it is possible to prove that there are two eggs in a nest on a tree. For religion it may believe that a bird has soul in its eye, but cann’t prove it. But even science is not always final, for with further discoveries/inventions, some of the science theories are disproved or changed, for science theories are theories after all. Relegion rests on faith, evidence of the things unseen. I cannot be scientific always. Almost all cultures are filled with the stories of ghosts, though science has not proved their existance. Science deals with physical world and has no say in spiritual world. Even science has not been able to say fianlly the ultimate cause of the physical world. In fact, man has soul within him, but has very limited knowledge of what is there in the spiritual world. It is therefore futile to examine the religion on the basis of science. It is based on faith. But just it is based on faith, it is not that it is false. As for me, I know my God and that is sufficient for me. If someone wants to prove him, he is free to do so and discard him in recycle bin.

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 5/2/2009 12:37 pm

Charles,
1) “The Genesis account of the flood is false.” It is your opinion only.But at least,You have accepted that a significant flood has happened in the Middle East.
Here is a norm which I heard of.It is something like this.”The benefit of doubt must go to the document itself;the critic must not take advantage of it.”

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 5/2/2009 12:04 pm

Alex, you have the right to believe what you want, but how can you prove that Moses or anybody else was inspired? You just can’t.

The similarities between Genesis and the Babylonian clay tablets are a strong indication that a significant flood did happen in the Middle East. They are also a strong indication that the Genesis account is false. If people in Babylonia survived the flood to chisel their experience then it is not true that only Noah’s family survived it. I think this is a very sensible conclusion.

This is only one of many instances where Genesis accounts simply lack credibility. Some accounts, like the creation of the universe 6,000 years ago, have been proven false. Others, like God taking action to stop people from building a tower to heaven, are downright ridiculous. Genesis may be inspired to you. To me it just doesn’t make sense.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/2/2009 11:04 am

I)Charles,Let me try to explain something in the commentary made by Terik Q in post# 58.
1)2 Pet.1:21.”For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man;but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
The writers were moved outside their own power and energy by the Holy Spirit and they wrote the Word of God.Thus God has communicated His truth through chosen men filled and led by the Spirit of God.
2 Tim.3:16.”All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.”=All Scripture is God breathed.
Inspiration is the influence of the Holy Spirit which enabled the holy men of God to record the infallible Word of God.
Revelation occurred when God gave the truth.Inspiration occurred when the writers of the Scriptures received the truth & recorded it.
2)The Pentateuch (the first 5 Books of the Bible)were written by Moses by the inspiration of God.
Num.12:8. “With him I will speak mouth to mouth apparently and not in dark speeches.”
Ex.33:11. “And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face,as a man speaketh to his friend.”
God revealed to Moses divine Truth.Moses had written what has been revealed to him.
Ex.24:4.”And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord.”
Ex.34:24.”And the Lord said unto Moses,Write these words…”
Num.33:2″And Moses wrote these goings out according to the journeys by the commandment of the Lord.”
Moses came to know some facts through tradition & testimony as Terik Q has said.Moreover,Moses was an eyewitness to many incidents which he had recorded in the Pentateuch as Terik Q has commented..But Moses has recorded only what has been revealed to him.
The point I want to highlight here is that there was no contradiction
between what has been revealed to Moses by God & recorded and what he came to know through tradition & testimony and as an eye witness.This is internal evidence.It is a test to test the reliability of a document.(See comments in post #66)
II)Refer commentary by Charles in post #70
It is learnt that during the last one century or so,many clay tablets have been found in the ancient sites of Nineveh,Babylon & Ur and other parts of the world.It is said that there was a tablet containing the Babylonian account of the flood.It is said that the Genesis account of the flood and the Babylonian account of the flood have many similarities between them.But Genesis account has the theological content and it has the interpretation of facts.Of course the Genesis account of the flood was written by the inspiration of God.

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 5/2/2009 05:19 am

Re post 69: Alex, the Bible is extremely important as a historical document and immensely useful to archaeologists. In general - and this is of course no surprise - the closer in time the writers were to the stories they were telling, the more accurate they were. Those who wrote about the life of Jesus did so only a few decades after Jesus’s death and therefore their accounts should not be too far off the mark. However those who tried to reconstruct what had occurred centuries or millennia before their time tend to be wrong most of the time.

I believe that a great flood occurred because this is in the tradition not only of the Bible authors but also of other cultures. For example I remember learning about the havoc caused by a flood to the Euphrates River. This seems to have happened in the general time frame of Noah’s life. Of course, if other cultures experienced the same flood and lived to tell about it, then the claim that only Noah’s family survived would be false.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/2/2009 00:15 am

Charles,
Before responding to your comments in posts #63&68,let me continue the comments in post#66.
1)Another test to test the accuracy of a document is the external evidence test.(Evidence from archaeology & confirmation by other writings etc.).
Earlier I mentioned about the Internal Evidence test.
a)Archaeological evidences:
There are many references in the scriptures about the nation Hittites.(Gen.15:20).Before the identification of the Hittites by the archaeologists,
there were doubts about the accuracy of the Bible for some people..The Bible was vindicated once the archaeologists identified the nation Hittites.
The famous Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck has said,”It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements of the Bible.And by the same token,proper evaluation of Biblical description has often led to amazing discovery.”
b)Thousands of New Testament quotations used by the Church fathers in the early centuries after Christ attest the authenticity of the Book.
2)Charles,Here is a question for you.You have stated in post#64,”We know that a great flood occurred at some point.” May I know how do you know that?
Thank you.

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 5/1/2009 23:27 pm

Re post 66: Alex, the three languages and the three continents you refer to are in the same part of the world - the eastern Mediterranean region. Certainly the Bible is not universal. It was not concerned at all with what was happening in other parts of the world at the time.

And, once again, the original books of the Bible do not exist any more. You CANNOT claim there are no contradictions in them until you find them.

I would appreciate it if you answwered post 63.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/1/2009 18:43 pm

Since Moses is the only known author of the Exodus story, then the story is probably not true. There were several other historians at the time and they would certainly have picked up on such a fantastic story.

I disagree with your point that we can know Bible history by comparing different copies. Perhaps you meant different authors, not different copies. But even in the case of different authors a case has been made that subsequent copies were changed so that they would not contradict each other. I don’t necessarily beleive there was much of this, but when you don’t have the originals you just know know.

I don’t know what to make of your comment “How can we know what Ehrman meant to say in “Misquoting Jesus”? - I only read a copy” The copy you read was exactly the copy I read. There are no scribes nowadays that could change the manuscript from copy to copy!

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/1/2009 18:32 pm

The Bible has been written in three languages (Hebrew,Aramaic & Latin)from three continents (Asia,Europe & Africa) by 40 different writers with different backgrounds dealing with many controversial subjects - during a time span of nearly 1600 years.But there are no contradictions in the Bible.This is internal evidence for the reliability of the Bible.Because of the divine inspiration,there is no contradiction in the Bible.

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 5/1/2009 15:29 pm

Refer to posts 64 & 58: My example of Pres. Washington’s history may have caused confusion. I assume people who are historians compare accounts from different authors against one another to know what actually happened. Since Moses is believed to be the only author of Genesis, one can’t compare different authors. But one can compare the different copies. That was the point I was trying to make in post 58: We can know Washington’s history by comparing different authors and we can know Bible history by comparing different copies. I also wrote in the previous post that a study Bible should have footnotes noting the few questionable verses. Hope that helps.
(By the way - How can we know what Ehrman meant to say in “Misquoting Jesus”? I only read a copy!!)

Commentary by Terik Q
Posted on: 5/1/2009 11:29 am

Dear Terik

You’re the first one I know that describes the original writings of the Bible as “a joint human and divine authorship” (post 58). Your discussion of inspiration and your example of the cherry tree story seem to indicate that parts of the Bible may have been altered or made up. I guess that’s where you gave me the “half right” comment.

If parts of the Bible are suspect, then this begs the question “which parts can we trust?” As you indicated, we need to check other authors. The story of Exodus, for example, cannot be validated by any author other than Moses. So it should be dismissed.

Indeed there are very few accounts that can be validated in this manner. We know that a great flood occurred at some point, we know that Jesus was a powerful leader who was crucified by the Romans, and we know that various kings ruled and wars occurred more or less as the Bible tells us. So the Bible is historically very important. But that’s all the Bible is: an important historical document with some verifiable and some unverifiable accounts. As far as which parts of it, if any, are written or inspired by God, how can anybody tell?

Charles

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/1/2009 10:23 am

Alex, re. your point 1) I thought the Dead Sea Scrolls were original texts. You say they’re not and I’ll take your word for it. In any case they are older than any other Biblical texts in existence today.
I would still like to know what your thoughts are about the choice made by the Church to include certain books in the Bible and not others. Why, for example, is John the word of God and Thomas is not?

Your point 2) is that though the original texts of the Bible have disappeared, the word of God has been preserved due to the careful copying of the Scribes. How can you possibly judge that the copies are faithful to the originals when the originals are nowhere to be found?

Your point 3) about genealogies didn’t address my question. How can the Bible be a source of truth when its genealogical references misjudge the creation of the universe by millions of years?

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/1/2009 09:49 am

Charles,
Glad to hear from you again.
I want to clarify some points.
1)Dead Sea Scrolls:They are not original Texts.They are dated to 250 B.C.to 150 B.C.All the fragments of the Hebrew canon except for the Book of Esther have been discovered.They are in close agreement with the Masoretic Text.
2)The Original Texts of the Bible only have disappeared.But the Word of God has been preserved all through these ages due to the careful copying done by the Scribes.
3)Genealogies are important.So they are included in the Bible.The central theme of the Bible is about the redemption of man.Matthew & Luke have given the genealogy of Jesus Christ.Jesus Christ came to offer Himself as sacrifice for our sins.He had paid the penalty for our sins on the Cross.
The Old Testament sacrifices pointed to the final & efficacious sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
4)I’ll continue the discussion about the manuscripts which I’ve left in the middle later.

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 4/30/2009 23:49 pm

Alex, welcome back. I’ve been away for the past two weeks but now I have now found the time to read your recent postings.

As you noted, the word ‘biblia’ means books. During the centuries before and after the birth of Christ, the Middle East flourished with books about God and Jesus. You said that the Dead Sea Scrolls substantiate the books of the Bible. The Church did not include the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Bible. Nor did it include gospels according to St. Thomas, Mary Magdalene, and others. Did the Holy Spirit inspire all these books or just the ones the Church favored?

You also tackled the subject of the disappearance of the original Bible books. All the reasons you gave are valid. Things disappear over time. But is anything impossible for God? Isn’t it ironic that God has permitted the survival of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other books that were excluded from the Bible but allowed his chosen books to fade away?

Finally, Alex, in your most recent post you noted some Biblical genealogies. This brings me to a subject we touched on once before. By adding all of the genealogies through the birth of Jesus we conclude that according to the Bible the universe is only about 6,000 years old. We know that this is far from the truth. This remains for me one of the biggest obstacles to accepting the Bible as a source of truth.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 4/30/2009 20:32 pm

Terik Q,I thank you for your nice comments in post#58.
You have mentioned about oral tradition.
“Adam told his kids and they told their kids and so on.”
Here are some interesting facts from Genesis 5 in which we found genealogies.
1)When Adam was 130 years old,Seth was born. Gen.5:3 -Adam’s age 130yrs.
2)When Seth was 105 years old,Enos was born. Gen.5:6 -” ” ” ” ” 235 yrs
3)When Enos was 90 years old,Cainan was born. Gen.5:9 -” ” ” ” ” 325yrs.
4)When Cainan was 75 years old,Mahalaleel was born.Gen.5:12 -” ” ” ” 400yrs.
5)When Mahalaleel was 65 years old,Jared was born.Gen.5:15 -” ” ” ” 465yrs.
6)When Jared was 162 years old,Enoch was born.Gen.Gen.5:18 -” ” ” ” 627yrs.
7)When Enoch was 65 years old,Methuselah was born.Gen.5:21 -” ” ” ” 692yrs.
8)When Methuselah was 187 years old,Lamech was born.Gen.5:25-” ” ” ” 879yrs.
9)When Lamech was 182 years old,Noah was born Gen.5:28
Adam was 879 years old,when the 9th from Adam-i.e. Lamech was born.Adam died at the age of 930 years.
Hence when Lamech was 51 years old(930-879=51),Adam died.
Adam died only 131 years before Noah was born.

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 4/30/2009 14:36 pm

Please refer commentary in post #56.
Charles,you’ve mentioned about “Codex Sinaiticus” in your commentary in post#51. Before proceeding further I think it will be useful to furnish some latest details about it.
CODEX SINAITICUS
“Codex Sinaiticus ” is a manuscript written in the middle of the 4th century. “Codex” means “book”. “Codex Sinaiticus” means “the Sinai Book”.It is named after the Monastery of Catherine,Mt.Sinai where it was preserved for many centuries.
Leaves & fragments of this manuscript were taken by Constantine Tischendorf, a German Biblical Scholar,in 1844,in 1853 & in 1859 so that they might be published.The principal surviving portion of the Codex comprising 347 leaves was purchased from the Soviet Govt. in 1933 and is now held by the British Library.They were previously known as “Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus” as they were kept in St.Petersburg between 1865 & 1933.A further 43 leaves are held at the University Library in Leipzig.
They were published in 1846 as “Codex Augustanus” in honour of Fredrick Augustus II,King of Saxony who was the patron of Constantine Tischendrof.
Parts of 6 leaves are held at the national Library of Russia in St.Petersburg.12 leaves of 40 fragments remain in St.Catherine Monastery recovered by the monks from the northern of Monastery in June 1975.
The hand written text is Greek.The N.T. appears in the vernacular language (koine)and the O.T. in the version known as the Septuagint.
The pages of Codex Sinaiticus are of prepared of animal skin called parchment.Each leaf measures 380 mm high & 345 mm wide.Just over 400 leaves survived.On these parchment leaves is written half of the O.T.& Apocrypha
(the Septuagint),the whole Book of the N.T and two early Christian Texts not found in the Bible (An epistle by an unknown writer claiming to be the Apostle Barnabas & The Shepherd written by the Roman writer Hermas).Most of the first part of the manuscript (containing most of the so-called historical books from Genesis to 1 Chronicles ) is now missing & presumed to be lost.
The Septuagint includes books which many Christian documents place in the Apocrypha.Those present in the surviving part of the Septuagint in Codex Sinaiticus are 2 Esdras,Tobit,Judith,1&4 Maccabees,Wisdom & Sirach.

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 4/30/2009 05:26 am

Charles, you’re half right. True, mistakes could have occurred, but that does not mean they did on the level some people suggest. True, the Bible copying & translation was a human endevour, but the original writtings were a joint human and divine authorship.
Regarding the original, there are (at least) the issues of Revelation and Inspiration. Assuming Moses as author of Genesis & Exodus, how did he know about the events (Revelation)? Divine Revelation - Moses had a dream/vision while on Mt. Sinai. Oral Tradition - Adam told his kids who told their kids and so on. Testimony - Other witnesses such as Mose’s sister & mother could have told him about his birth. Eyewitness - Moses himself experienced the actual Exodus. (I also think that everyone has a generic version of the Resurrection story written on the heart — thus explaning similar myths in different cultures as well as the popularity of Star Wars, Harry Potter, and the like.)
When Moses did the actual writing of things he knew, Inspiration took over. Christians disagee about how the Inspiration happened. Was Moses a puppet? I believe that he was filled with the Holy Spirit during the task, but he was not a robot. I also believe that Inspiration ensured the revelation was correct if were Oral or another non-Divine form. Other authors, such Billy Graham, are also inspired but not as Biblical authors were. There is a difference b/w inspiration vs Divine Inspiration.
Next is the issue of copying. Scholars probably could tell you how many differences there are when copys are compared against each other. The issues to consider: Text may have been changed, added, or removed. If so, which one is correct? Also, were changes small (typo) or great (resulting in another theology)? I work in publication, so I know a little of what scribe might have had to deal with. A copy is made and checked, re-checked, checked by someone else, checked by a different person, and re-checked again.
It might help to use a secular example: Different historians wrote about Pres. George Washington. Suppose one didn’t realize the cherry-tree story was just a myth and wrote it into his book. Would that discount the rest of his history? Certainly, one would be wise to verify his account against other authors. By checking all history books, people can know reality vs myth. We can know for certain that Washington was an actual man who became President. With the Bible, we know the copying was very exact. It was treated with the utmost care, respect, and accuracy. By comparing copies, we know the main story and we know where there are a few differences. Any good study Bible has footnotes alerting the reader about questionable verses. We can know the Gospel: Christ and Him crucified.

Commentary by Terik Q
Posted on: 4/29/2009 18:51 pm

Dear Teriq Q

Your comments in Post 52 are very valid. It is reasonable to assume, as you did, that scribes took great pains to make sure that they were transcribing or copying everything correctly. But your assumptions of what the scribes would have or could have done clearly also imply that these scribes acted in a human capacity. And this means that mistakes could have occurred, as, indeed, they did. And this again enforces my conclusion that the Bible is a human endevour, not a divine one.

Charles

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 4/29/2009 12:55 pm

Ref:Commentary in post #55.
It is learnt that 5300 Greek manuscripts(oldest manuscripts written on papyrus & the later manuscripts written on parchment),10000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts & 9300 manuscripts in Ethiopic,Coptic,Slavic,Syriac & Armenian are available containing fragments of or entire N.T.The total number of manuscripts approaches the figure of 25000.(The N.T. was written about 50 A.D.to 95 A.D.)
The following are some of the earliest manuscripts.
1)Magadelene manuscript containing fragment from Matthew .(Chapter 26).It was discovered recently.It is said that it was written before 68 A.D.This is considered to be the oldest manuscript discovered.
2)John Rylands fragment(p52)containing John 18:31-33,37 dates about 125 A.D.It has been found in Egypt.It is kept in the John Rylands Library,
Manchester.
3)Chester Beaty Papyri(p46)containing a portion of the N.T.dates about 200 A.D.It is kept in Chester Beaty Museum,Dublin& Ann Arbor,Michigan University of Michigan Library.
4)Bodmer Papyri(p66) contains(104 leaves)a portion of the Gospel of John.It dates about 200 A.D.It is kept in cologno,Geneva.
5)Codex Sinaiticus which is dated to the middle of the 4th century contains half of the O.T & the entire N.T.written on parchment leaves.It is called “aleph”(the Hebrew first letter).The portions of Mark 16:9-20 & John 7:53-8:11 are missing.
6)Codex Vaticanus is known as “B”.it is kept in the Vatican Library.It dates to the middle of 4th century or even before that time.It contains almost the whole Greek Bible.(Most part of the Genesis is missing.In the N.T.the portions of Heb.9;14 to the end,the Pastoral Epistles,Philemon and the Book of revelation have been lost.).It does not contain Mark 16:9-20.
7)Codex Alexandrinus is a 5th century manuscript of the Greek Bible containing majority of the Septuagint and the N.T.It is designated as “A”.It is believed that it is written in Alexandria.It is kept in the British museum.(The leaves containing Matthew 1:1-25:5;John 6:50-8:52;2 cor.4:13-12:6 are lost.)
(To be continued)

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 4/29/2009 05:36 am

Refer commentary by Charles in post #51.
1)The Old Testament was written in Hebrew & Aramaic languages.The portions of Ezra 4:8-6:18;7:12-26;Jer 10:11;Dan.2:4-7:28 were written in Aramaic.The remaining portions were written in the Hebrew language.The letters of the Hebrew & Aramaic were similar.
2)The Septuagint:”Septuaginta” is the Latin word for seventy.The oldest complete translation of the O.T. has been called the Septuagint.It was commonly designated as LXX.LXX is the Roman numeral for 70.It was believed that 70 to 72 translators were commissioned to translate the O.T.in Greek.
According to tradition,the Septuagint traces back to the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt.(285-246 B.C)
The quotations from the O.T. in the N.t.are usually citations from the LXX either verbatim or with minor verbal changes.In other cases,the N.T.
writers translated themselves from the original Hebrew.The early Church has used the LXX.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have also provided earliest manuscripts of parts of the O.T. in Greek.There is close similarity with the LXX.
3)All the Books of the N.T. were written in Greek.
4)As Christian Church spread to other parts where Greek was not spoken,
efforts were taken to translate into Latin,Syriac & Egyptian languages.
5)The Original Texts of the N.T.are not available.Almost all copies made during the first three centuries have disappeared.
Reasons:
i)Papyrus was commonly used for letters.(2 John 12)It soon wore out.
ii)In the time of Diocletian(A.D.303),the persecutors of Christians sought for copies of the Scriptures to be destroyed.
6)Thousands of Greek manuscripts of N.T.Texts are still in existence.
Further,thousands of manuscripts of translations into Latin,Syriac,Egyptian
& other languages are also available.
7)The N.T. quotations in the writings of the early church fathers are also available.
(To be continued)

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 4/27/2009 16:35 pm

1)Why would God allow His Word to disappear?This was one of the questions asked by Charles.(Post #47).Let us find the reasons for the disappearance of the original texts of the Bible and how God preserved His Word even then.
2)Materials used for ancient writings:
i)Stone:The Ten commandments were written on stone.Ex.24:12;31:18;32:15-19.
ii)Clay Tablets:(Jer.17:13;Ezek.4:1)Even though clay tablets had great durability and were the cheapest writing materials ,there were limitations in use due to transportation problems and less space for writing.
Thousands of clay tablets which contained details of events ,names & cities of the Bible had been found.One clay tablet dated to 539 B.C.had the records of the events connected with the Persian victory over Babylon.
iii)Papyrus:The English word paper comes from the Greek word “papyrus”.
Papyrus was the most commonly used material for ancient writing.Papyrus could be transported easily & was much easier to use than stone & clay.The papyrus reed was available only in Egypt & Syria.Large quantity of papyrus was transported in ships through the port “Bablos” in Syria.The Greek word for books “biblos”is found in the name of this port.
John Rylands is the oldest N.T.manuscript dated to 125 A.D.It contains a portion of John 18.
iv)Leather:Leather was made from the skins of sheep,goat,antelope or cowhides.It had greater durability than papyrus but more expensive.it was susceptible to cracks & crumbles.
The Isaiah scroll of the dead Sea Scrolls is made of leather.
v)Parchment:The city of Pergamos in Asia Minor(Rev.2:12) was famous for the production of parchment.The word parchment is derived from the name of this city.
Parchment was also made of animal hides.They were soaked in lime water to make them white.
vi)vellum:The calf skin was called vellum.It was dryed purple.
vii)Metal:One copper Scroll containing details of a lot of temple treasures & their locations was among the find of the dead Sea Scrolls.
viii)Ostrica:The technical name is potsherd.(Job 2:8).This was unglazed pottery with the common people.
3)The following are the reasons for the disappearance of the Original Texts of the Bible.
i)Due to passing of time,the writing materials decayed naturally because of their characteristic of limited durability.
ii)Due to frequent handling & use of materials ,they became damaged and unreadable.
iii)The weather conditions or environmental conditions of the places where the manuscripts were kept caused the materials to be destroyed.
The reason for the existence of many papyrus documents is because of their survival due to dry environmental conditions in areas like Sinai desert and Dead Sea area.They were not exposed to moisture due to low humidity.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly made of animal skins but also of papyrus and one of copper.
iv)It is learnt that Hebrews destroyed old manuscripts once copies had been made out of them.
4)Not only Bible manuscripts but also other writings belonging to the corresponding period had been destroyed and they did not exist.
5)Dead Sea Scrolls:The Dead Sea Scrolls consist of roughly 1000 documents including Texts from the Hebrew Bible discovered between 1947 & 1979 in 11 caves in and around the Wadi Qumran (near the ruins of the ancient settlement of the Khirbit Qumran,in the northwest shore of the Dead Sea)in the West Bank.The texts are of great religious & historical significance as they include practically the only known surviving copies of Biblical documents made before 100 A.D.
6)Prior to the discovery of the dead Sea Scrolls,the oldest copies of the manuscripts available were the Masoretic Text.Masoretes were the Jewish scribes who were meticulous in copying.As Terik Q has commented in post # 52,utmost care had been taken in copying.They knew the Hebrew language very well and were able to read the Text which had no vowels or punctuations.It is learnt that they added vowels during the period from 500 A.D.to 1000 A.D.The Dead Sea scrolls are dated to 250 to 150 B.C.There is a time gap of nearly 1000 years between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Texts.When both Texts were compared ,there were no significant differences.This means that copying has been done precisely for 1000 years,
7)It gives us the confidence that the Texts were preserved through the earlier periods also with equal care.
That’s all for now.I’ll continue later.

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 4/27/2009 00:36 am

1)Greetings to you,Charles.I’m happy to contact you once again in this way.
You’ve said that you are fascinated by the Bible.I’m happy about that.
Sir.Isaac Newton,William Shershel,Michael Faraday,Joseph Lister,
Lord Kelvin,Henry Pager,Louis Pasture& James Simpson were some of the scientists who had read the Bible with interest.
George Washington,Abraham Lincoln,Queen Victoria,Ronald Reagen & Gandhi were some of the political leaders who were fascinated by the Bible and the teachings of Christ.
John Bunyan,Chaucer,Robert Browning,Charles Dickens,Longfellow,Milton,
Macaulay,Ruskin,Shakespeare,Shelly,Spencer & Tennyson created literature based on the Bible.
2)Bible comes from the Greek word “biblia” which means “books”.The evangelicals believe that the Bible is the Word of God.2 Tim.3:16;2 Peter 1:21.The Bible is the only book which claims supernatural origin.Every word in the original text is inspired by God.It is true that the original text is not available now.However,it is believed that the copies of the original text have high degree of accuracy.Minor variations in the copies available in Hebrew & Greek languages did not alter or affect the doctrines of the Bible.
3)Here are some famous Quotes about the Bible.
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” - George Washington.
“I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man.”
- Abraham Lincoln.
“There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history.”-Sir.Isaac Newton
“I have fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God written by men who were inspired.I study the Bible daily.” -Sir.Isaac Newton.
4)Charles,you’ve remarked “FAITH may be a powerful gift.”Yes,it is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.1 Cor.12:8.
There is a passage which tells what faith is .”Now faith is the assurance (the confirmation,title deed)of things (we)hope for,being the proof of things(we) do not see and the conviction of their reality[faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to senses].Heb.1:1(Amp).
We find another statement about faith in Heb.11:6.”But without faith it is impossible to please him;for he that cometh to God must believe that he is,and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”
5)Charles,you are neither an atheist nor an evolutionist but an analyst.I’m glad to know that you had visited Mt.Sinai.You are searching for the Truth.
You’ve also made me to make a little study about the “Authenticity of the Bible” and relevant subjects.Thank you.It is interesting.
Charles,you’ve mentioned about the book “Misquoting Jesus”.I’ve gone through some critical reviews of that book.It is stated that no major doctrinal statements were changed after New Testament canon was accepted in the early second century.
Daniel Bowman has concluded in his article that the Bible,despite textual variations,has been preserved over the centuries with a remarkable trustworthy.
6)The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947,shows the evidence that the Bible has been copied accurately.The Dead Sea Scrolls are dated from 250 to 150 B.C.The discovery pushed back the available oldest Scripture almost 1000 years.When the content of the Dead Sea Scrolls was compared to later copies,no significant differences were found.
7)The Scripture has authority because God has all authority.As God is the author of all Scripture(2 Tim.3:16),Scripture is authoritative.God is the basis for the authority of the Bible.
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,…” 2 Tim.3:16.
That’s all for now.I’ll continue in a while.
Before winding up, let me thank Terik Q for his nice comments in post #52.

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 4/25/2009 11:28 am

Reply to Charles Fiott:
I’m no expert either, but I would like to offer my response.
Awhile ago I read (sometimes skimmed) Ehrman’s book “Misquoting Jesus”. It seemed to me at one point he was comparing the transmitting of Scripture to the telephone game. When Paul was dictating to his secretary, the scribe could have heard wrong and therefore wrote down incorrect words. I take exception to that: If a scribe was unsure, he would have asked before writting something down. Also, he would have read it back to Paul to ensure he wrote it correctly.
When the OT was copied, a scribe counted the letters. He counted what he was copying, and then he counted his copy. If it didn’t match, it was not acceptable.
It is true that Hebrew does not use written vowels. So how can one be sure of what the actual word is? Context! We have a similar problem in English even with vowels. Consider the word “live”. Do I mean “I want to live to be 100″? Or do I mean “the music concert will be broadcast live”? Try to guess what I mean in this sentence without vowels: “Jm gv bn t hs dg.” Dg could be dag, deg, dig, dog, dug, or variations such as doug. In the above context, it is dog.
I realize that there are a few questionable verses. The woman caught in adultery but saved by Jesus may not have happened. And the end of Mark was probably an addition. Interesting that these examples are in the NT. I don’t have all the answers. But the context of words and the detailed copying of scripes are important considerations.

Commentary by Terik Q
Posted on: 4/24/2009 16:01 pm

Alex, I am by no means an expert, but I have been looking into the authenticity and the accuracy of the Bible with an open mind. There is much info which you can get online or in print. Let me suggest two sources which I believe are quite balanced. One is an article called “Is Today’s Bible the Real Bible?” by Daniel Bowman which you can read at http://www.irr.org/bible-reliable.html. The other is a book by Bart D. Ehrman called “Misquoting Jesus”. Both note discrepancies in the Bible, some or many of which were intentional. Bowman concludes that the changes are not huge enough to infringe on the authenticity of the Bible. Ehrman’s conclusion is basically the opposite. Both are interesting reads.

Here are some of the salient points that emerge from these and other sources:
1. The Old Testament was written between 1400 and 400BC, yet the oldest copies go back only to 250BC. That’s well over a thousand years between original and copy. In that long period of time any number of changes, whether voluntary or involuntary, could have been made.
2. The books of the Old Testament were written mostly in ancient Hebrew, a language which originally did not use written vowels. The Masoretes added vowels and punctuation, but this did not happen until the 7th through the 11th century AD (or so). Students of ancient Hebrew know that using one vowel in lieu of another can make a big difference in the meaning. So even if we had the real words of the Bible today, we still wouldn’t be sure what they meant.
3. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament is the Codex Sinaiticus. It dates from 300-350 AD, i.e. well over two hundred years after the passing of the authors in whose names they were written. It was discovered at the Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai, Egypt, which was built on what is traditionally believed to be the site of Moses’ burning bush.
4. These New Testament manuscripts are in Greek. As you know the writers in whose name the Gospels and other books were written were NOT Greek. So a lot may have been lost in translation right from the start.
5. Both Bowman and Ehrman give specific examples of texts that were changed over the centuries. These changes include additions and omissions, honest mistakes as well as intentional alterations and interpretations. Considering the tools of the time, it was humanly impossible for the scribes not to make mistakes. But then, again, if they were truly inspired God would have guided their hands and their spirits.

You have every right to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but it is a matter of faith, not truth. I am not downplaying faith. It may be a powerful gift, and I have no right or intention to try to take it away from you.

I will also add that, despite our differences, I am totally fascinated by the Bible. Not too long ago I personally climbed Mount Sinai and toured the monastery of St. Catherine there. I even took a picture of the lonely bush in the middle of the desert which some monks at the monastery still claim to be the one that burned for Moses.

But I am an analyst, and quite comfortable in that role. I feel that:
(a) if there is an all-powerful God who wanted the Word to be known through eternity, he/she/it would not have allowed it to wither away with time.
(b) Even as we have it today, the Bible is clearly a product of its time, with no prophetic value whatsoever. And
(c) many stories in the Bible, particularly in Genesis, are at odds with reality and some of them have been disproved by science.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 3/10/2009 01:15 am

Charles,
You have asked two questions in post 49.
I)Your first question :Why do you have to interpret for everything?Why can’t accept THE WORD AS IT IS WRITTEN?You have asked nice questions.
1.a)One thing I learned is that the Bible is the Best interpreter.We have to allow the Bible to interpret a subject by itself.The subjects which are found in more parts of the Bible can be interpreted in more ways than the subjects which are found in lesser parts of the Bible.We have to check up whether a interpretation of a verse is found to be parallel with the interpretation of some other verse.
For example,the term “gravitational force” is not used in Job 26:7,but the suggestion of the fact is implied and we have Col.1:17 & Heb.1:3 as the other verses to support this fact.
When there is limitation for interpretation,we have to accept it by faith.
b)When we study a verse,it is important to note the context of that verse.
To understand the context of that verse,we may have to read carefully a few verses before that verse & a few verses after that verse or we may have to read the entire chapter or even we may have to read the entire Book in which it was found.
We have to ask a few questions for better understanding of that verse.(i)Who has spoken it? (ii)Of whom was it spoken? (iii)Where was it spoken? (iv)When was it spoken? (v)Why was it spoken?
When we find the answers to questions -like these ones,we will be able to understand that verse more clearly.Thus we are making an analytical approach to the study of a verse.
c)Charles,we discuss the verses of the Bible in the King James version Bible in English.Isn’t it?
Actually the Bible was written in Hebrew,Aramaic & Greek languages.I use to refer to the meanings of the Hebrew & Greek words used in the Bible ,if needed.But I do not Hebrew or Greek.I don’t know Aramaic as well.I have to depend on the Translated Bibles only.
Charles, Actually we are not discussing the Bible as it is written in the original languages.I can’t do it as I do not know those languages.
I believe that the King James version Bible is a wonderfully Translated Bible.There is no doubt about it.But it will be advantageous to compare the other translations.There are many translations available in the English language.Here are some of them:
(i)The Amplified Bible (ii)Contemporary English Version (iii)God’s Word translation (iv)Living Bible (v)The message (vi)New American Bible (vii)New American Standard Bible (viii)New century version (ix)New International version (x)New Jerusalem Bible (xi)New Living Translation (xii)New Revised Standard version (xiii)New testament in Modern English by J.B.Philips (xvi)Today’s English Version (xv)The King James Version/Revised Authorized Version (xvi)The New English Bible (xvii)Good News Bible.
I don’t refer to all the above translations frequently.I use the King James Version Bible & New international version for regular reading but refer to few other translations especially the Amplified Version when clarification & clarity are required.
If anyone knows other languages apart from English,it will be useful to read the Bible in those languages also to know the Bible well.
Here is an example.In the Amplified version of the Bible,we find the phrase”upon or over nothing” in Job 26:7.We see that Job has mentioned that earth does not hang upon something and it is not supported over something.
It is understood that the earth is held by the gravitational force.Job was answering the questions raised by Bildad.He had mentioned about the unsearchableness of God’s power.
d) Above all,we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit for understanding of the Word of God.
2)You’ve said that the Bible writers had not envisaged us going in a space craft.
Here is a verse which looks different.
“Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle,and though thou set thy nest among the stars,thence will I bring thee down,saith the Lord.” Obadiah 4.
Your question will be:”Where is the word “spacecraft”in that verse?Isn’t it?
It seems as if you are saying that you will believe the Bible only if you find the terms like “Gravitational force”,”Laws of Thermodynamics” etc. or the sentences like “The earth is round”,”The earth is held by gravitational force” etc.
Charles,you do not believe that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Ghost.You deny the existence of God.You deny the authenticity of the Word of God.You may be having your own views & beliefs.Everyone in the world has his own belief about God.That is not surprising because God is not forcing anyone to take a decision.God has given free will to every one.
II.Your second question:If the Bible is the Word of God,why would God allow His Word to disappear.
I will try to answer this question later.I think that will be a lengthy discussion.
Charles,In the mean time,please let me know something.
How do you know that the earliest copies of the Bible date from the 4th century A.D.How do you assume that the words of the Bible have changed a lot from one copy to another.
That’s all for now.Good bye.

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 3/9/2009 13:36 pm

Alex, after reading posts 47 and 48 I can’t see how you can say that I misunderstood your interpretations. I understand them, but they are so far-fetched that it seems like you are practically trying to rewrite the Bible in your own words. So my first question is, Why do you have to reinterpret everything? Why can’t you accept THE WORD AS IT IS WRITTEN?

You are also misinterpreting me. The statement that you referred to was this: “if you only accept what the scriptures say and nothing else you probably don’t believe that men walked on the moon or that the world is round or that Obama is president” Now you apparently combed the Bible in search of any passages that may remotely suggest otherwise, but not a single one of your Bible examples states flat-out that the world is round. NOT ONE!

You again dwelt on Isaiah. We’ve already gone around this (see post 39). This is the only one of all your examples that could possibly indicate that one of the Bible authors may have known that the world was round. Now, if that’s the case, it would only indicate that some of the authors knew more than the others. And this would in turn indicate that not all of them were inspired by the same source. In other words my conclusion would be exactly the opposite of yours: the writers of the Bible were NOT inspired; they just wrote their own ideas.

You also made this claim: “I’ve already given examples of Bible believing Astronauts who walked on the moon and made history.” NO, Alex, you have not. You gave examples of what the astronauts said about the Bible, not vice-versa. The Bible writers may have believed that people could build a tower to heaven, but they never envisaged us going there in a spacecraft.

And neither does the phrase “upon or over nothing” indicate gravity. This is another one of your “interpretations”. If the writers knew about gravity they would have simply called it so and not waited three thousand years for someone to “interpret” them.

Alex, you make the word truth sound very hollow. Truth requires proof, and you cannot provide any. You cannot prove the existence of the Holy Ghost, let alone his inspiration. You cannot prove the authenticity of the Bible (see my next paragraph). You cannot prove anything you labeled as “TRUTH” in post 48.

Here’s a truth: YOU DON’T KNOW what the Bible says. Nobody does! That’s because none of the originals survive. The earliest surviving copies of the Bible date from the 4th century AD and, as you know, the words of the Bible have changed a lot from one copy to another. Even if the Bible is the truth, we have no way of knowing it.

So here’s my second question to you: If the Bible is the word of God, why would God allow his word to disappear?

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 3/7/2009 22:49 pm

Charles,
1)Earlier you’ve made a statement like this:A person who believes the Bible will not believe that the earth is round.
I’ve already mentioned that the 8th century B.C.prophet Isaiah has made a statement under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost in Isa.40:22:”It is he who sitteth upon the cycle of the earth…”.This statement clearly suggests the fact of a spherical earth in space.Isaiah has not given his own idea or concept.It is a revealed fact.
In the Amplified version of the Bible,we find Proverbs 8:27 as:
“When He prepared the heavens,I(Wisdom)was there;when He drew a circle upon the face of the deep and stretched the firmament over it.” Pro.8:27(Amp).
Here is another verse.”He that compassed the waters with bounds with day and night come to an end.”Job 26:10.This verse can be translated as:”He has described a circle upon the face of the waters at the boundary between light & darkness.”
Only if an object is spherical in shape,it will appear as a circle when viewed from any point on the surface.
The following verses also suggest that the earth is round.
“The wind goeth toward the south and turneth unto the north;it whirleth about continually and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.”
Eccl.1:6.We find this verse in Amplified Version as :”The wind goes to the south,and circles about to the north;it circles & circles about continually,
and on its circuit the wind returns again.”(John 3:8).[Eccl.1:6(Amp)].
“He stretcheth out the earth over the empty place,and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”Job 26:7.
Thus in the Bible we find many statements which indicate the roundness of the earth.I’ve already mentioned that Eratosthenes (276 B.C-
195 B.C.)has calculated the circumference of the earth with remarkable accuracy using geometry.But it was Galileo who has proved that the earth is round in the 16th century A.D.
The Bible does not contradict the concept proved by Science but supports it.The writers of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what is accurate and they did not write their own ideas & concepts.
Charles,Please refer commentary No.7 for Gen.1:16.You’ve already mentioned that the Bible gives credit to the fact of roundness of earth.
2)I quoted Job 26:7 to point out that the earth is held by the gravitational force.Look at this verse in the Amplified Version of the Bible.:
“He it is Who spreads out the northern skies and HANGS THE EARTH UPON OR OVER NOTHING.”Job.26:7(Amp).
Please note the phrase”Upon or over nothing.”.It suggests clearly to the fact of gravitational force holding the earth.It is not contradictory to the Theory of gravitational Force formulated by Sir.Isaac Newton in A.D.1687.
In our verse,it was spoken of God by Job.See what God Himself spoke about Job to one of his friends Eliphaz in Job 42:7 & 8.
“…My wrath is kindled against you and your two friends,for you’ve not spoken of me the thing that is right,as My servant Job has.”Job 42:7(Amp).
“..and My servant shall pray for you,for I will accept (his prayer) that I deal not unto you after your folly,in that you have not spoken of Me the thing that is right,as My servant Job has.” Job 42:8(Amp)
From these two verses,we understand that Job has made the statement in Job 26:10 about God under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.God called him as his as servant.Job has spoken about God correctly.This verse contains revealed fact.
In addition,Col.1:17 & Heb.1:3 contain strong statements which suggest the fact that gravitational force holds the earth.
3)Charles,You’ve made a statement like this:Those who believe the Bible will not believe that men had walked on the moon.I’ve already given examples
of Bible believing Astronauts who walked on the moon and made history.
4)You also made a statement like this:People who believe the bible will not believe that Obama is the President of America.I think that it is a sarcastic statement.No problem.
Charles,do you mean that the people who believe the Bible do not read Newspapers or watch & listen to News broadcast.Actually the students & scholars of Bible prophecy look into the newspapers daily with a prophetic outlook.
5)As I said earlier,if you seek the TRUTH with a sincere heart and an open mind you will find it.
Jesus said:”I am the WAY,the TRUTH,and the LIFE.”John14:6.
In the scriptures we see a picture of Jesus Christ.
Jesus said:Sanctify them through the TRUTH;Thy WORD is TRUTH.”
Jesus Christ is the TRUTH..
The Bible is the TRUTH.
As I’ve mentioned earlier,Rom.1:20,Heb.3:4& Acts 14:7 indicate that the Nature gives witness to fact of the existence of God.
The Bible is the revealed Word of God.
6)The Creator of the world is the author of the Bible.The 66 Books of the Bible had been written by about 40 writers under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost over a span of 1600 years.
“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man,but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 1 Pet.2:21.
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” 2 Tim.3:16.
The main theme of the Bible is about God’s plan of salvation for man from sin.But it contains details of history,Prophecy,Science etc.All the details given by the Bible are true and dependable.People doubt as they do not have sufficient facts or they do not to have them or believe them.
As I’ve said earlier,the Bible is not a Text Book of Science with all formulas and laws of science to be taught to the students of Science.But it is not contradicting to the facts proved by Science.That is the point I’ve mentioned when I said that the Bible contains scientifically proved facts.
Actually the Bible has made such statements even before they are proved by Science.The revealed facts of the Bible help us to understand things which cannot be discovered by any means.
Many prophecies of the Bible have been accurately fulfilled.The Bible also contains prophecies which are going to be fulfilled in the future.
They are archaeological evidences which have confirmed that the history written by the Bible writers is true and accurate.
We believe things that can be believed.
“Faith is the substance of things hoped for…” Heb.11:1.
7)To my understanding,there is no doubt about the authenticity of the Bible.
The Word of God is powerful & it can change the lives of men.Heb.4:12.
There are witnesses about men, who once said that there was no God,had changed their views after carefully & thoroughly reading the Bible.
Charles,I’ll discuss with you on the subject of the distance of stars & relevant matters later.Thank you.
That’s all for now.Good bye.
http://www.vbvbc.org/bible-verse/genesis1-16/

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 3/7/2009 17:36 pm

Charles,
You have misunderstood my interpretations of the Scriptures.
You have misunderstood the Word of God also.
I will explain later.

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 3/5/2009 14:55 pm

Alex, a scientifically proven fact is a theory that has been subjected to empirical evidence and verified to the point that it can be replicated with predictable results. For example, one of the ways to prove that the world is round is to fly around it in any direction and arrive back at the point of origin. This is a predictable result. This is proof.

This type of verifiable evidence is absent from your example. The statement “He hangeth the earth upon nothing” is not only unverifiable but it is actually not true. The world does not hang; it gravitates. Gravitating is in many ways the opposite of hanging. You hang something by using some device or force (e.g. a rope), to keep your subject from being pulled by gravity. Gravity on the other hand occurs when there is no such competing influence.

So, if anything, this passage from Job only strengthens my contention that the writers of the Bible had absolutely no idea of how the universe came to be. They just made things up.

Alex, when I was young I had what I thought was an unshakable faith in God. Faith by definition is not something that can be proven, and therefore I don’t understand why anyone would try to prove something that is unprovable. By the same token faith in something abstract (e.g. God or ghosts) cannot be disproved either. However a theory or a statement CAN be disproved, and there are a few in the Bible that have been proven wrong.

Let me give you one example. I am sure you agree that science today has an accurate idea of distances in space. Without this accuracy NASA wouldn’t have been able to send Galileo all the way to Jupiter and predict its time of arrival with any precision. The instruments that correctly calculated the distance to Jupiter also calculate the distance to the stars, most of which are millions of light years away. This means that the stars you see at night have been in existence for millions of years. Yet, acccording to the Bible, God created the stars only about six thousand years ago.

How do you explain that?

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 3/5/2009 00:50 am

Charles,
According to the Geocentric theory evolved by Ptolemy in the 2nd century,the Earth is the center of the Universe.This view was accepted upto the 16th century.
Nicholus Copernicus evolved the Heliocentric theory in 1543.
According to his theory,the Sun is the center of the Universe and the planets including the earth revolve around it.It is important to note that the planets Uranus,Neptune & Pluto have been discovered in the recent past only. (1781-1930).
It was Copernicus who had discovered that the Earth spins on its own axis and make one rotation in 24 hours.He had stated that that the Earth while rotating on its own axis revolves around the Sun along an elliptical path.It makes one complete revolution around the Sun once a year.
This is evidence for the fact that the views of the scientists & astronomers have been changing as advancement in technology goes on..
To my understanding,Job 38:14 suggests the fact that the earth rotates on its own axis.
Please read the commentary for Job 38:14.
http://www.vbvbc.org/bible-verse/job38-14/

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 3/4/2009 23:54 pm

Charles,
Thank you for your comments in Commentary No. 43.
Here is an example for a scientifically proved fact in the Bible:

1)In ancient past,it was generally believed that the earth was held by giants or elephants or or by by some other means.They didn’t have any clue for the hanging of the earth upon nothing.
The Book of Job is one of the oldest Books of the Bible.It says:
“He stretched out the north and the empty place,and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” Job 26:7.
In 1687 A.D. Sir.Isaac Newton has found that it is the gravitational force which holds the earth and heavenly bodies.But the author of the Book of job had long back stated that “He hangeth the earth upon nothing.”
Col.1:17 says,”And he is before all things,and by him all things consist.” The theory of gravitational force formulated by Sir.Isaac newton is the explanation for “by him all things consist.”
“…upholding and maintaining and guiding and propelling the Universe by His mighty word of power…” Heb.1:3(Amp).
God created the world by His Word.It is the Word which upholds the world.
The truth that the earth hangs upon nothing is understood by this verse also.
2)In the space there are some places where there are no stars.The fact has been discovered very recently only.The truth of “empty place” in space has been mentioned in the Book of Job .(Job 26:7)
Please read the commentary for Job 26:7 also.
http://www.vbvbc.org/bible-verse/job26-7/

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 3/4/2009 05:14 am

Alex, it’s been good debating with you and I look forward for future contributions from you.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 3/4/2009 02:30 am

1)Charles,Thank you very much for your comments in commentary No.39.
You have said that you are concerned about proved facts.It is good.The recent arguments arose from the statement of Jeyant Christian.”The Bible begins with God.It takes for granted that there is God and doesn’t require to prove that there is God.” Is it not?
I asked a few questions to you not to test your knowledge but to know your stand & belief and the basis of your belief.I am happy that you have
answered those questions with pleasure.
The Bible does not make a debate.It does not argue.Perhaps it may not try to prove the existence of God.
Jeyant Christian,Please note that the Bible has some verses to think whether
there is God or not.
“For(of course)every house is built and furnished by someone,but the Builder
of all things and the Furnisher(of the entire equipment of all things)is God.Heb.3:4(Amp)
If there is a building,there must be a builder who has built that building.
A building cannot come into existence by itself without a builder.Likewise Nature manifests that there must be a Creator.
“For ever since the creation of the world,His invisible nature & attributes,
that is His eternal power and divinity,have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made(his handiworks).So (men)are without excuse[altogether without any defense or justification].Ps.19:1-4.”–Rom.1:20(Amp).
The sun,moon,stars & all creation speak about the majesty and power of God.Please read ps.8;104:24-26;139:11-16;Isa.40;26;Jer.31:35;33:22.
Please read what Paul & Barnabas had told the people at Lystra after the healing of a crippled man.:
“Nevertheless he (God) left not himself without a witness,and gave us rain from heaven,and fruitful seasons,filling our hearts with food& gladness.” Acts 14:17.
2)Charles,I accept that there might have been people(scientists,astronomers,
mathematicians)in some parts of this world who had the view that the earth is round before Pythagoras has explained it in about 506 B.C. even though there is no clear evidence for that.O.K.That is not a big problem.
Isaiah has compared the Creator with the human beings in Isaiah 40:22.
The people of the earth were insignificant before the Creator.So he said that the people of the earth are like grasshoppers before the mighty Creator.
In Isaiah 40:15,he said,”Behold,the nations are as a drop of a bucket and are counted as the small dust of the balance,behold he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.”
Isaiah has used similes.
In Isaiah 40:26,he mentioned about the innumerable stars in the heaven to point out the greatness of God’s might & power.
Perhaps Isaiah might not be knowing that the earth is round.But he had written the Scriptures as he was moved by the Holy Ghost.
“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost.” 2 Pet.1:22.
3)In the Amplified version of the Bible,we find Pro.8:27 as:
“When He prepared the heavens I (Wisdom)was there;when He drew a circle upon the face of the deep and stretched out the firmament over it.”
4)The invention of telescope was an important event in the history of Science.Because of the development of technology, we are able to know the amazing facts about the wonders of creation.
5)Charles,I will try to give a few examples for the scientifically proved facts contained in the Bible later.
6)I believe that Genesis is an important Book of the Bible.But as I have said earlier,it does not contain all the details of creation.I believe that it contains revealed facts.
“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
Heb.11:3.
7)Charles,you have inclined to the belief of the evolution theory.That is your personal belief.But you have said that you believe that it will take a few centuries for the theory of evolution to be proved.You said that the theory of evolution has good observation and in fact evidences.
I did not attempt to convince you that the Bible is true.
But I have gone through some materials which I think are convincing
evidences for the fact that the Bible is True.
You are a searcher of truth.I hope that if you search for the TRUTH in sincere heart & open mind,you will find it.
Charles,thank you for your comments in commentary no.40.I will give my response for that later.
Thank you for taking time to discuss with me.

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 3/3/2009 05:55 am

Ref:Commentary No.28 by Terik Q:
1)”Elohim”
“Elohim” is a plural word which may appear along with both singular as well as plural verbs & pronouns.In Gen.1:1,the plural noun God “Elohim” is joined with singular verb created “bara”.The word “Elohim” suggests plurality of majesty & plenitude of power in using God’s creation & governing of man & world.This word occurs about 2500 times in the Bible.It is used 32 times in Gen.1.It conveys the idea of creative & governing power,of omnipotence& sovereignty.Omnipotence is expressed by the words & actions of Elohim.He brings cosmos out of chaos,light out of darkness,
habitation out of desolation & creates life in His own image.
2)”the earth,which is the third planet third rock from the sun,where every organism lives”
Out of the nine planets in our Solar system only Earth,which is the 5th largest planet,has ideal conditions for the sustenance of human life,animal life and plant life.Water,oxygen and the required temperature necessary for the existence of men are available only on Earth.
“The heaven,even the heavens are the LORD’S:but the earth hath he given to the children of men.” Psalm 115:16.
Earth which is called the “Water Planet” is the only planet on which water is available,as nearly 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water.
Atmosphere surrounding at equal distance of 1600 km around the earth has 77 to 78% nitrogen,21% oxygen,1% Argon,Hydrogen,Carbon-Di-Oxide,helium,Ozone etc.
Mercury & Venus are very much near the Sun & the temperature is very high & so human beings cannot live there.Jupiter,Saturn,Uranus,Neptune,Pluto are very far away from the Sun & the temperature is very low & they are not suitable for men to live there.(Jupiter,Saturn,Uranus& Neptune are larger than the earth.Pluto is the smallest planet.).There is no evidence of existence of human beings in Mars which is the next planet away from the Sun.So the Earth is not far away from the Sun or so near to the Sun when compared to the other planets.The average temperature of the Earth when it is against the Sun is 17 degrees C which is suitable for the existence of human beings.
“..God himself that formed the earth and made it;he hath established it,he created it not in vain,he formed it TO BE INHABITED……”Isaiah 45:18

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 3/2/2009 05:39 am

Alex, thanks for your comments on posting no. 38 but I have to admit I don’t get your point. Excited astronauts who happen to be Christian do not constitute any link between the moon and the Bible. Nor do I see any connecton between Eratosthenes and the Genesis and Jeremiah lines that you quoted. Sorry!

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 3/1/2009 22:22 pm

Alex, I am glad you are finally debating (and not just asking “testing” questions.) I am responding to the numbered points you made in Post # 37.

1. You asked me “why did you worry that Genesis did not tell the fact that the earth is round”

I am looking for facts, so I always get concerned when anybody publishes statements that are either false or misleading.

2. You said “There is no evidence before Pythagoras,for giving the fact of the roundness of the earth.”

Yes, but you can’t conclude that he was the first to know. I mentioned that during lunar eclipses ancient astronomers could notice the round shape of Earth as its shadow moved across the face of the moon. Astronomers in Egypt predicted solstices and eclipses with perfect accuracy long before Isaiah was born and it is hard to imagine that they were unaware that the world was round.

Still, this does not mean that Isaiah necessarily knew that Earth is round. Isaiah was trying to describe a view from heaven, from where “people are like grasshoppers”. This of course exposes some ignorance on the part of the prophet. Such a description would much better fit a hilltop view. When you look from an elevated spot, your horizon is a circle. So the world “circle” in Isaiah 40:22 may refer to the expanse of the earth’s surface, not to the shape of the entire planet.

3. You quoted Pro.8:27 and the word “compass”, which you say refers to “circle”.

Not really. Compass refers to direction, not shape.

4. You noted that Eratosthenes was the first man to calculate the circumference of the earth and Galileo the first to prove that Earth is round.

This seems to be true.

5. You said that the Bible “contains facts which are scientifically proved.”

Can you give me some examples?

6. This does not elicit any comments.

7. You asked me whether if I believe in creation or evolution

Creation stories were proposed at least three thousand years ago not only by Jews but by several communities around the world. Some call them theories while others believe they lack any observations that would qualify them as such. Evolution on the other hand has lots of observations, even evidence. But this is a very young theory – less than 200 years old. As you noted in point no. 4 it took 18 centuries for the theory of the spherical shape of Earth to be proven right. I guess we may likewise have some centuries to wait before we can prove evolution.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 3/1/2009 22:00 pm

1)Charles,you have mentioned about Eratosthenes in commentary No.36.
You may know that it was he who has measured the tilt of the earth’s axis of rotation from the perpendicular to its original plane as 23.5 degrees.
This is the reason for the occurrence of various seasons on the surface oft the earth.Please read Gen.8:22;Jer.33:20,25.
2)Charles,you mentioned about man walking on the moon in commentary No.31.I want to remind you some incidents which happened in the past in this regard.
3)It is known that the crew of Apollo 8 has showed the photos of the earth & the moon in 1968 in a television broadcast on Christmas Eve.It is interesting to know that they have read the first 10 verses of Genesis chapter 1 in that program.
4)We very well know that Neil Armstrong was the first man to set foot on moon on July 21,1969.He has said,”This is one small step for man,but one great leap for mankind.”
Aldrin was the another astronaut who walked on the moon later.It is said that he has said in a television broadcast on July 23,1969, that a verse from Psalms has come to his mind:
“When I consider the heavens,the work of thy fingers,the moon and the stars,which thou hast ordained,What is man,thou art mindful of him?…” Psalm 8:3,4.
It is learnt that he has written this portion of the Scriptures & left it in the moon.
5)It is learnt that the astronaut Mitchell had carried the Microfilm Bible with him to the moon in Apollo 14 in 1971.
Charles,It is interesting to know the link between the moon and the Bible.

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 3/1/2009 15:10 pm

1)Thank you for your comments,Charles.
When I asked you,”Actually who discovered the fact that the earth is round?
When?”,you in turn asked me,”Why is that important?”.Charles,then why did you worry that Genesis did not tell the fact that the earth is round.In fact,Genesis does not contain full details of creation.That’s why there are many different views among us.
2)You said that Isaiah 40:22 may imply the fact that the earth is round.I am happy that you’ve quoted that.
“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth…” Here undoubtedly Isaiah gives the fact that the earth is round.
The mathematician Pythagoras told that the earth is round only around 506 B.C.Unfortunately others did not accept the fact.There is no evidence before Pythagoras,for giving the fact of the roundness of the earth.Isaiah lived in Jerusalem in the 8th century B.C.So even before Pythagoras has told that the earth is round,Isaiah has given the fact.
3)There is another verse which implies the fact that the earth is round.
“…When he set a compass upon the face of the earth…”Pro.8:27.The word “compass” refers to “circle”.This statement is made in poetic form by King Solomon who lived around 1000 B.C.
4)I came to know that Eratosthenes (276 B.C-195 B.C)who was a Greek mathematician & astronomer was the first man to calculate the circumference of the earth with remarkable accuracy using geometry.
But it is said that Galileo,the 16th century Italian astronomer has proved that the earth is round.
5)The Bible is not a text book of Science with all formulas & laws of science.But it contains facts which are scientifically proved.The main theme of the Bible is about the plan of salvation of man.
6)Genesis is called the “Seed plot of the Bible”.It contains all the major themes of the Bible in seed forms which are developed in the remaining Books of the Bible.
7)Charles,there is one question I like to ask you.
What do you believe?Creation or evolution?

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 3/1/2009 12:18 pm

Alex, why is that important? We don’t really know for sure who first determined with any certainty that the world is round, do we? We know that ancient astronomers observed the round shape of Earth’s shadow as it moved across the face of the moon in lunar eclipses. The Egyptians may have known this more than a thousand years before Moses, but the writers of Genesis did not pick up on it. The only part of the Bible which may imply that the world is round is Isaiah 40:22. By that time Pythagoras and others were advancing the idea of a spherical Earth, and therefore this is no surprise. By the year 240 BC we had the first-known measurement of Earth’s circumference, conducted by Eratosthenes.

The only thing I can say for certain is that Genesis did NOT tell us that the world is round. On the contrary, its description of the world and the universe is totally erroneous.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 3/1/2009 05:26 am

Charles,
Actually who discovered the fact that the earth is round?when?

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 3/1/2009 00:08 am

Alex, what does creation mean to you? When someone composes a piece of music or an essay, we may say that he or she “created” something. This may or may not be the correct term, but it is a term that we can all relate to. However when it comes to “creating” something physical, the idea becomes quite complex because nobody has been known to actually make something out of nothing. Both scientists and creationists have come up with various ideas of how the universe came to be, but neither group has ever been able to prove the physical creation of anything.

We will not know the truth about the beginning of the universe in our lifetime. We can only pass on what little knowledge we gain to future generations. Remember, it took humans millions of years to find out that their world was round and that it is only one little speck in a vast universe. Our search for the truth has barely begun.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 2/28/2009 17:31 pm

Charles,
If God is not the Truth,what is your explanation for creation?

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 2/28/2009 00:42 am

Jayant Christian wrote: “The Bible begins with God. It takes for granted that there is God and doesn’t require to prove that there is God.”

Therein lies the problem. People abide by their different version of God (or supreme leader, or whatever) and they discard any obligation to prove anything. No wonder we have all these wars and killings.

Truth by definition is only what can be empirically proven and predicted. Therefore, by definition, the Bible is NOT the truth and God is NOT the truth.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 2/27/2009 17:57 pm

I just caught this message from Donald: “In regards to the theory that millions of years transpired between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2, does anyone have any Scriture references that “hint” at this possiblity?

Donald, first of all if you only accept what the scriptures say and nothing else you probably don’t believe that men walked on the moon or that the world is round or that Obama is now president of the United States. The Bible doesn’t acknowledge any of these “possibilities”. Open your eyes to truths that we do not get from the scriptures.

Second, scientists understand distance in space so well that they were able to send Galileo all the way to Jupiter an predict exactly when it was going to get there. These scientists tell us that the stars you see at night are millions of light years away, which means that they have been around for millions of years, which means millions of years transpired during the “seven days of creation”. Is this enough “hint” for you that the Bible is NOT a source of truth?

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 2/27/2009 17:43 pm

In the begining God! Oh! what a begining! When God begins, it is always good, for God is good.The Bible begins with God. It takes for granted that there is God and doesn’t require to prove that there is God.God is eternal and so there is nothing prior to Him. He is the begining and the end.” I the Lord the first, and with the last; I am He.”(Is. 41:4)I need not be fool by telling there is no God. God should be first in all that we do. In fact, let us begin each day with God.He is the creator of all and we therefore owe all to Him.When God begins a good work of redemption, he will perform it till the day of Christ (Phil. 1:6) He is our creator, he is our re-creator- making us a new creature in Christ.

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 2/27/2009 16:59 pm

In Genesis 1:1,the plural noun “God” (Elohim) is joined with singular verb “created” (bara).This verb is used in verses 1,21 &27.

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 2/10/2009 01:05 am

Life, the Universe and Everything:
WHEN did God create the heaven and earth? In the beginning. There was no time before the creation. (Scientists theorize that time is related to gravity.) It is important to note that heaven and earth were created at the same time. Heaven did not come before earth. Also people assume that heaven is God’s home, however this verse states that only God has no beginning and no end. Another assumption is that anything that has a beginning also has an end, but heaven and earth are eternal (even though they both will be transformed).
WHO created the heaven and earth in the beginning? God. He alone is the Intelligent Designer. Just as a watch implies a watchmaker so to does the universe imply God. Also, a watchmaker implies a couple of watchmaker makers which in turn implies makers of the makers. Everything and everyone has a cause except God. He is the Uncaused Cause. It is true that the Hebrew word for God used in this verse is ‘Elohiym and is a plural noun that could be translated Gods. This begs the question: Why would an author who believes in one God use a plural noun? Keep in mind that the term is used throughout the Old Testament. It is even used in Deuteronomy 6: Hear, O Israel: The LORD [Yahveh] our God [‘Elohiym] is one LORD [Yahveh]. So the plural noun is used in this case to denote majesty and the fact that the Godhead is a Trinity.
HOW did God cause heaven and earth in the beginning? He created them. This is a divine creation that only God could do. Humans can just make things by mixing together pre-existing ingredients. Some scientists are trying to create life. They might be able to do that, but I bet they can’t pull the materials out of nowhere. I admit there is some confusion in this area: Some people say that creation was “something from nothing”, but it is also said that “nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could”. There was always something – there was always God. By the way, humans don’t really have a grasp of nothing. For that, someone would have to leave the galaxy until no gravitational forces are at work.
WHAT did God create in the beginning? Heaven and earth - Everything. There are at least three types of heaven: The heaven of the sky where birds fly, the heaven of space where planets rotate, and the heaven of the spiritual realm. It is my belief that the third case of the spiritual realm is used in this verse, but that will change in future verses. Humans cannot perceive the spiritual realm unless our eyes are opened. It is a mistake to place forces such as energy and wind, or even space, in this category. These things help us understand heaven, but they are not that. The spirit realm can’t be detected (paranormal claims aside). Just as there are different types of heaven, so to are there different types of earth: The earth of the dirt where worms live, the earth which is the planet – the third rock from the sun – where every organism lives, the earth also known as the world as a system – the way things are - which will be cursed in a later verse, and the earth could also refer to everything in the universe. It is my belief that this verse refers to everything that humans can perceive. This is the physical world (body) but also could be mental abilities (soul – mind, will, emotions). A later verse (Gen 1:26) will discus humans being the image of God. Suffice it to state that heaven is spirit and earth includes both the body and soul. One key word to introduce here: B-A-L-A-N-C-E. Balance! On one extreme there are scientists who are atheists like Richard Dawkins. Their theory is that the universe is all there is and there is no heaven. If true, then humans are just talking bi-pedal animals. On the other extreme there are the philosophers who are the New Age-ers like Wayne Dyer. I admit that I like to hear Dr. Dyer talk and read some of his work. However, his theory is that the physical is temporary and that the spirit is all that really matters. (Spirit matters? Is that a contradiction?) If true, then humans are in fact a spirit with a body instead of vice versa. The truth is heaven and earth are both necessary. They do not contradict one another but rather compliment each other. (Think “you complete me”.) The sooner humans grasp balance, the better off we’ll be by the grace of God.

Commentary by Terik Q
Posted on: 2/9/2009 14:54 pm

1)In chapter of Genesis 1,we find God & the description of creation.Genesis 1:1 forms the broad base of a triangle.It is a foundation for the rest of the chapter.The simple statement contains the concept of Time,Space & Matter.
In the beginning——Time;
Heavens..————-Space;
Earth..—————Matter.
God created the material elements in Gen.1:1.
2)As the apex of the triangle,creation of man is described in Genesis 1:26-28.It is the high point of creation.Moses,the writer of Genesis,didn’t give full details of creation.He has written whatever has been revealed to him.
3)The earth is an unique planet.It is tailor made with conditions suitable for the existence of human beings.In the vast universe,the attention is focused to the earth.In the earth,the attention is focused to man.

Commentary by Alex
Posted on: 11/6/2008 02:59 am

In the beginning. To expound the term “beginning,” of Christ, is altogether frivolous. For Moses simply intends to assert that the world was not perfected at its very commencement, in the manner in which it is now seen, but that it was created an empty chaos of heaven and earth. His language therefore may be thus explained. When God in the beginning created the heaven and the earth, the earth was empty and waste. He moreover teaches by the word “created,” that what before did not exist was now made; for he has not used the term ruy, (yatsar,) which signifies to frame or forms but arb, (bara,) which signifies to create. Therefore his meaning is, that the world was made out of nothing. Hence the folly of those is refuted who imagine that unformed matter existed from eternity; and who gather nothing else from the narration of Moses than that the world was furnished with new ornaments, and received a form of which it was before destitute. This indeed was formerly a common fable among heathens, who had received only an obscure report of the creation, and who, according to custom, adulterated the truth of God with strange figments; but for Christian men to labor (as Steuchus does) in maintaining this gross error is absurd and intolerable. Let this, then be maintained in the first place, that the world is not eternal but was created by God. There is no doubt that Moses gives the name of heaven and earth to that confused mass which he, shortly afterwards, (Genesis 1:2.) denominates waters. The reason of which is, that this matter was to be the seed of the whole world. Besides, this is the generally recognized division of the world.

God. Moses has it Elohim, a noun of the plural number. Whence the inference is drawn, that the three Persons of the Godhead are here noted; but since, as a proof of so great a matter, it appears to me to have little solidity, will not insist upon the word; but rather caution readers to beware of violent glosses of this, kind. They think that they have testimony against the Arians, to prove the Deity of the Son and of the Spirit, but in the meantime they involve themselves in the error of Sabellius, because Moses afterwards subjoins that the Elohim had spoken, and that the Spirit of the Elohim rested upon the waters. If we suppose three persons to be here denoted, there will be no distinction between them. For it will follow, both that the Son is begotten by himself, and that the Spirit is not of the Father, but of himself. For me it is sufficient that the plural number expresses those powers which God exercised in creating the world. Moreover I acknowledge that the Scripture, although it recites many powers of the Godhead, yet always recalls us to the Father, and his Word, and spirit, as we shall shortly see. But those absurdities, to which I have alluded, forbid us with subtlety to distort what Moses simply declares concerning God himself, by applying it to the separate Persons of the Godhead. This, however, I regard as beyond controversy, that from the peculiar circumstance of the passage itself, a title is here ascribed to God, expressive of that powers which was previously in some way included in his eternal essence.

Commentary by John Calvin
Posted on: 10/20/2008 06:36 am

In regards to the theory that millions of years transpired between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2, does anyone have any Scriture references that “hint” at this possiblity?

Commentary by Donald
Posted on: 9/21/2008 20:14 pm

It is translated “In the beginning God created” because the word bara is not in the infinitive (i.e. -ing or to ___) but past tense. If you translation it “When God began creating” or “when God began to create” you are ignoring the grammar to suit a liberal theological agenda.

Commentary by jk
Posted on: 9/10/2008 03:44 am

The opening word of the verse, b’reishit (or Bereishit), has a known meaning, though the precise meaning is open to interpretation, which is highly significant because it contributes to both biblical thought and subsequent religious doctrines.

The word b’reishit lacks the definite article (”the”). Various English translations put it as “in the beginning,” “in the beginning when,” “at the beginning,” “during the beginning,” or “when [God] began.” The root of the first word Bereishit בראשית is ראש “head” — being the central core word (ראש can be pronounced as rosh which is the Hebrew for “head”).

Furthermore, the first letter ב means “in” or “at”, and the last letters ית imply “of”. The use of the word “head” implies something “at the top”, as in “head” of something. In this case it is the “head” or “start” of Creation, which is possibly where the idea to translate it as “in the beginning” originates.

Commentary by Biki
Posted on: 9/7/2008 13:07 pm

jk, obviously you don’t know the difference between evidence and proof. There is plenty of scientific evidence that the sun was here first. There is also strong evidence, and even proof in some cases, that many other Biblical accounts are also false.

The irony with you is that you require scientific proof for logical facts and yet you’re such a sucker for illogical accounts that were written without a shred of credible evidence. How sensible is that?

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 4/22/2008 00:47 am

There is no scientific evidence that the sun existed before the earth. There is no scientific evidence that the earth existed before the sun. Neither statement is provable by science. Both are outside the realm of science altogether. Science can only explain what takes place within the laws of nature, and the origin of the universe did not take place within the laws that didn’t exist before it was made, meaning science cannot explain it.

Commentary by jk
Posted on: 4/21/2008 20:52 pm

So, JK, diatribes aside, answer my question: where can I find any evidence - any non-laughable evidence at all - that our planet was in existence prior to the sun?

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 4/21/2008 18:25 pm

“Jk, the scientific community has produced compelling and verifiable evidence…” such as some lame conjecture about dust? You can’t have verifiable evidence for something like that. Their views on this subject are as much religious as mine. When science tries to explain how the universe came to be they leave science altogether and delve into philosophy. Science can tell us how to build a TV, not how the world was made in the beginning. To assert that science can do that is to make science into a religion, which also makes it cease to be science. Your “scientific community” that produced these supposed proofs is not a scientific community at all, but a group of priests of the religion of atheism.

Commentary by jk
Posted on: 4/21/2008 16:10 pm

Jk, the scientific community has produced compelling and verifiable evidence that the sun preexisted our planet. Please tell me where I can find any compelling and verifiable evidence to the contrary.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 4/19/2008 22:33 pm

“On the fourth day the luminaries were made; because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the vain philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things which grow on the earth are produced from the heavenly bodies, so as to exclude God. In order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior cannot produce that which is prior.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, Theophilus to Autolycus, Book II, Chapter XV.-Of the Fourth Day)

“Science” is nothing more than the follies of vain philosophers. In fact, it is interesting how much of modern science is just Greek paganism rehashed in less superstitious terms. Charles (#11) says that it is scientific fact that the sun was in existence before the earth. So the vain philosophers of ancient Greece would have asserted it to be fact that the sun was a divine being who gave birth to the earth. His doctrine and theirs are the same, only his is cleaned up with modern language. The superstition abides, however, which asserts that the things which are seen can only have come into existence from other things which are seen, and therefore nothing unseen exists. The ancient philosopher said that the sun gave birth to the earth, and the modern scientist says that debris floating around the sun formed into the earth. What’s the difference? It is the same vain philosophy that nothing exists but what is seen. But thank God that God created the heavens and the earth and that one day Christians will be on a new earth wherein righteousness (not vain philosophy) dwells.

Commentary by jk
Posted on: 4/19/2008 21:25 pm

Someone has said, “There was nothing and God made something - put it on top of nothing and made it stay there.” The Bible nowhere attempts to prove the existence of God. In fact the Bible doesn’t start off telling us where God comes from, just “In the beginning God …”

Commentary by J. W. Elder
Posted on: 1/5/2008 01:46 am

DUH SAID”"”"Scientific fact: the sun was in existence prior to Earth”"”"
Science is something that can be observed and proven.
How do you proof that the sun came before the earth?
Are u so old that u observed it?

Commentary by Ashton
Posted on: 12/31/2007 20:52 pm

Please visit drdino.com

Commentary by Ashton
Posted on: 12/31/2007 20:40 pm

So, duh, do you believe Earth came into existence before the sun did?

Commentary by Charles
Posted on: 10/9/2007 12:41 pm

If you have a problem with the first four words of the bible, no answer will suffice.

Commentary by duh
Posted on: 10/8/2007 23:35 pm

Scientific fact: the sun was in existence prior to Earth
Genesis 1:1: the earth was created “in the begninning”; the sun came later (on the fourth day of creation).
This is proof that the Bible is false right from its very first verse.

Commentary by Charles
Posted on: 10/8/2007 16:25 pm

It is true that God created the earth and the rest in six days. That is what the word says. However, the Word does not specify how long each day was. Many assume because our days are roughly 24 hours long that God’s days were roughly 24 hours long. It is only an assumption. No scriptural proof for so many to be so dogmatic about it. Joshua’s long day was longer than 24 hours and was only one day. The days in the Tribulation period will be shortened [earth speeded up?] and they will be short days for three and a half years. With God, one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years are as one day. So while 24 hours is the norm, two examples above show longer and shorter than 24 hours that we know about. The point is that making assumptions based on the way things are normally in our experience is not proof that that is the way they were out of man’s experience. Man assumed the earth was flat and Christians especially got dogmatic about the earth being flat because of the Word’s mention of the four corners of the earth. I guess they missed Isaiah’s mention of the circle of the earth. Since God did not mention how long each day was, and at any rate the sun was out of that equation until man came along, we have to be satisfied by what the Word does say. If one wants to insist those days were 24 hours, insist to your heart’s content. I don’t believe the days were that short given the actual creation narrative. In the scheme of things it is not that important. What is more important is the sorry condition of the Church in America. Jesus is kicked out, knocking on the door from outside. Now that would qualify as important, the way I reckon things.

Commentary by Don
Posted on: 8/4/2007 19:43 pm

PROOF OF THE SIX LITERAL DAYS THAT GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH OUT OF NOTHING.
I am one who believes that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 literal days. Although there are some passages that the word “day” is not a literal 24-hour period, I submit to you, that in the first Chapter of Genesis, that the “day” mentioned there, is indeed, a literal day as we now know it. Note that “…and the evening and the morning were the first day […second day”, etc.] “Evening” and “morning” are not plural in ANY of the original manuscripts. Although man cannot comprehend HOW God “created”, it is understood in the original manuscripts that He “created” something out of nothing by His WORD. He did not “make” the heavens and the earth, he “created it out of nothing”. If one would like to know exactly how powerful God’s WORD is, one only need read the Gospel of John, Chapter 1.

Commentary by Steve K.
Posted on: 8/4/2007 15:00 pm

Genesis opens up with the earth already created. When Spielberg created Star Wars he did not start at the beginning either. God has not provided us with a prequeal. We are to walk by faith. God does not tell us everything. We are to walk by faith. Genesis 1:1 is not the heading of an outline or a thesis statement. Genesis 1:1 is the very start that we are privy to. In the beginning is not the real beginning either. The angels,Lucifer, arch angels and the host of heaven were created before. No matter which beginning you go back to there was God the Father, and the declared (not born, not created) eternal Son who is God and one with the Father and Holy Spirit. But in our beginning, that is of the earth, we see the earth enveloped in a massive amount of water like a baby in a womb. Then we see the earth grow, as it were, until it reaches maturity, a fit habitation for man. God has not revealed to us how he created the atom or how he created matter. Mysteries abound. We still don’t know how gravity works. The just shall live by faith. God has revealed enough for us to believe. The rest is in his department.

Commentary by Don
Posted on: 8/1/2007 08:39 am

On the question of how long a day was in Genesis, the Bible does not say. There was no man alive who could tell us. There is a strongly expressed assumption given as pure fact that each day was 24 hours long. This is largely insisted on as a rebuttal to evolution, as if God needs help defending his truth. The truth is that we really don’t know how long those days were. However, there are some hints that would indicate that the days were not our standard day. On the third day God commanded the vegetation to sprout and grow. We know that by the time we get a human perspective, the trees were magnificent. Notice that in spring, everything that is practically dead, springs up alive and abundant? Does not take much time to see the spring foliage blossom. A matter of days. Now back on a perfect world, how fast did that vegetation grow naturally? It was a process but unhindered by a fallen world. Yet even so, it would seem the day was greater than our standard day. Day six cinches it. After lunch, as it were, Adam was created. God created the animals in the morning. So late in the day, Adam experiences the wonder of a brand new creation, names all the animals and has enough time to get lonely — all this in the waning hours of the sixth day? The earth is in the womb, as it were, when we come to Genesis. Then the process of readying the world for human habitation takes place. The process has the feel of a period of time elapsing that does not coincide with our feel of a 24 hour period. Light was created instantaneously; the vegetation sprouted and grew; and the day of
Adam seems like it would contain a month of exploring the world, another month of cataloguing all the animals, and a while to get lonely. Quite a day. The only thing we know for sure is that all this was created in 6 days.
No need to force the 24 hour theory to combat evolution because evolution killed itself. All the half way this and half way that species, or the missing link, would have to be plentifully seen in the fossil record. Not there. Evolution is a fairy tale for those who don’t want accountability to a God who commands right living. The length of the creation days is anything the Lord says it is. He has not said; He has only hinted.

Commentary by Don
Posted on: 7/28/2007 19:02 pm

The Genesis account of the creation of the earth does not start at the actual beginning. Genesis opens up with the earth already created. It was empty and surrounded by an unbelievable amount of water. We are not privy to how it got to this stage. We must remember that the whole creation account was from God’s perspective. Man had no perspective at all until late on the sixth day when it was all over. Earth was birthed and developed step by step. First the food, then the habitation, and when it was all perfect, man.

Commentary by Don
Posted on: 7/28/2007 03:27 am

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1 A statement inspired by the Holy Spirit, written by Moses between 1450-1410 B.C. that was purposed by God to show the beginning - God revealing his plan of salvation through history that originates here. By faith, as Christians we believe his word - he created all - our beginning hidden in him through the ages.

Commentary by Sharon Corea
Posted on: 6/6/2007 06:10 am

Genesis 1:1 oes not start with “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” It actually reads “the gods” where you have placed “god.” The second version, by the Yahwists, have one of the gods ordering primordial matter; the first version has all of the gods using primordial water to create everything else out of. The myth, of course, came from Babylon.

Commentary by Desertphile
Posted on: 6/3/2007 17:44 pm

If we consider the speed of light and how long it takes for light of the edges of our universe to travel to the earth, I think indeed that we can’t say it was billions of years ago. I understand the Genesis “days” of creation in a non-literal manner. So, we don’t know exactly when God created everything.

Commentary by H.Hilton
Posted on: 6/3/2007 11:09 am

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . .
Then Verse 2 startes to talk about the earth, So it is very important that
we realize we have no idea how long the creation was before it mentions the Earth that is formless and void
What I am saying is we have no idea how long it was from verse one to
verse 2.
By the time we get to Gen 5 we can start to learn how long Creation as been on the earth.

Commentary by Often Misty
Posted on: 6/3/2007 06:18 am

On my computer I found some interesting remarks about this first verse of the Bible:

“The verse refers to the beginning of the world as we know it; it affirms that it is entirely the product of the creation of God. But there are two ways that this verse can be interpreted: (1) It may be taken to refer to the original act of creation with the rest of the events on the days of creation completing it. This would mean that the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 break the sequence of the creative work of the first day. (2) It may be taken as a summary statement of what the chapter will record, that is, verses 3-31 are about God’s creating the world as we know it. If the first view is adopted, then we have a reference here to original creation; if the second view is taken, then Genesis itself does not account for the original creation of matter [my remarks:”and does not account for the origin of God”]. To follow this view does not deny that the Bible teaches that God created everything out of nothing (cf. John 1:3) – it simply says that Genesis is not making that affirmation. This second view presupposes the existence of pre-existent matter, when God said, “Let there be light.” The first view includes the description of the primordial state as part of the events of day one. The following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the “heavens/sky” did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8 ) and “earth/dry land” did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10).”

Commentary by B-Forscher
Posted on: 6/2/2007 01:14 am