Genesis 1: 1 Commentary

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

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Jason W. Elder (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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?

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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

By Jason W. Elder (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Jason W. Elder (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Jason W. Elder (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/10/2009 04:54 am

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

By Alex (wrote 499 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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?

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Alex (wrote 499 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.”

By Alex (wrote 499 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Alex (wrote 499 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Alex (wrote 499 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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!

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Alex (wrote 499 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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!!)

By Terik Q (wrote 65 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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?

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Alex (wrote 499 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
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.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/30/2009 20:32 pm