Creationism And The Validity Of The Bible

[Penguin]

Christians,

 

There are several theories for how the world began. Germane to this discussion are:

 

1. Young Earth Creationism -- The belief the earth is thousands of years old. In this view, the "six days" in which God created the Earth are seen as 24-hour periods.

 

2. Other religious theories -- Any and all non-scientific interpretations of Creation.

 

3. Scientific Theories -- This encompasses any and all scientific theories as to how the Earth came into being.

 

My argument: Young Earth Creation must be the only theory Christians can ascribe to, or the Bible as a whole is not valid.

 

Evidence: The story of Creation includes the creation of man and woman. It also includes the instructions not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This story then goes on to tie into the story of Adam and Eve's temptation in Eden and their punishment for their sin. In that punishment, a prophecy of Christ is given. God specifically says that the serpent will bite Jesus' heel (referring to His crucifixion), but that Jesus will crush his head (referring to His resurrection).

 

In order to believe that Jesus was who he claimed to be, you have to believe in this prophecy, which means you have to take Genesis 1-3 literally. Otherwise, your support for Jesus falls apart, and the Bible becomes pointless fiction. Therefore, if Young Earth Creation is shown to be bunk, the Bible cannot be true.

 

As I am a new "de-con," I am open to the idea I may be wrong, so I invite both Christians and non-Christians to poke at this argument. All I ask is that you be gentle with me.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi Penguin, I'm sure you know that many Christian denominations allegorize various parts of Genesis. There are some right-wing Catholics who don't accept the ToE, for example, but the Church in general does.

 

BAA has put forth the same argument as yours, i.e. that Christianity as a whole stands or falls on the story of the Fall. Without a Fall, no need for Redemption. So if there were no Adam and Eve, the whole thing falls apart.

 

That's a different problem from the problem of age. I think evangelical apologists like William Lane Craig are fine with holding to the age of the Earth as 4.5 billion years, or whatever, and of the universe as 13.7 billion. They just do an exegesis of Genesis whereby six days does not mean six days. Craig also holds to the ToE, if I'm not mistaken, but argues that there was a historical Adam and a historical Eve. I think you can get away with being an inerrantist AND holding a form of the ToE if you spin the language of Genesis.

 

I took a medieval philosophy class in which our prof said that St. Augustine (one of MANY) allegorized the "days" of Genesis. Augustine, said our prof, held that in fact the world was created in a moment of time. As an evangelical I was a rabid inerrantist, but I allegorized the six days along the lines of Philo and other ancient commentators.

 

BTW I would not characterize YEC as a theory at all. It is just a bunch of biblical assertions. It does not do the work that theories do. Check out your Evolution thread!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Penguin, here are a couple of threads that might be of interest to you:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63235-gods-mighty-plan-of-salvation/

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/61193-god-is-a-liar/

[mymistake]

Never underestimate a Christian's ability to write off any part of the Bible that doesn't make sense to them.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

That's a different problem from the problem of age. I think evangelical apologists like William Lane Craig are fine with holding to the age of the Earth as 4.5 billion years, or whatever, and of the universe as 13.7 billion. They just do an exegesis of Genesis whereby six days does not mean six days. Craig also holds to the ToE, if I'm not mistaken, but argues that there was a historical Adam and a historical Eve. I think you can get away with being an inerrantist AND holding a form of the ToE if you spin the language of Genesis.

 

 

The problem with this type of interpretation is that it just doesn't square with what the scriptures actually say.  "There was an evening and a morning, the first day", is what is actually written in the text.  You can make the argument that a day with god is like a thousand years based on the new testament; but that still doesn't alter the fact that genesis makes plain that a day consisted of an evening (singular) and a morning (also singular). 

 

This also applies when christians use the same argument to explain how long Adam lived.  god said that Adam would die the day he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; but genesis 5:5 clearly states that Adam lived for 930 years.  So, god must have meant that Adam would die during the same thousand year period in which he ate of the fruit, since a day is like a thousand years with god.  Again, however, the text of genesis disagrees, an evening and a morning constitute a day.

 

For me, it requires more than simply spinning the language of genesis; it requires ignoring the language completely.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hey Prof, I basically agree with you, but Christian and Jewish exegetes have been allegorizing biblical passages for millenia. Christianity itself relies on allegorical interpretation of the OT. I find that when I try to tell allegorizers that they are ignoring details in the text, they happily tell me that it's a story that conveys deep spiritual truths, and that the discerning mind, steeped in a tradition of interpretation, can discern those truths.

 

Whaddaya gonna say? It's at that point that I can only reply, you have your interpretations, I have mine.

 

The difference is that Catholics, Jews, and such types can appeal to the normativity of their interpretative traditions. So the tradition becomes the conduit of revelation. This is quite explicit in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, which would say that the Bible is but part of Tradition, though the chief part.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Which is precisely what cracks me up about biblical literalists.  They will claim that every single word of the bible was divinely inspired by god; then turn right around and claim that the bible doesn't mean what it says.  The way I see it, if traditions carry more weight than the written word, then perhaps it's time to revisit the literalist view.  Moreover, if the six days currently in question are meant to be interpreted as allegory, can "the fall" be interpreted as anything less?  And if "the fall" isn't meant literally, then, again, there is no need for redemption.

[ironhorse]

Christians,

 

There are several theories for how the world began. Germane to this discussion are:

 

1. Young Earth Creationism -- The belief the earth is thousands of years old. In this view, the "six days" in which God created the Earth are seen as 24-hour periods.

 

2. Other religious theories -- Any and all non-scientific interpretations of Creation.

 

3. Scientific Theories -- This encompasses any and all scientific theories as to how the Earth came into being.

 

My argument: Young Earth Creation must be the only theory Christians can ascribe to, or the Bible as a whole is not valid.

 

Evidence: The story of Creation includes the creation of man and woman. It also includes the instructions not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This story then goes on to tie into the story of Adam and Eve's temptation in Eden and their punishment for their sin. In that punishment, a prophecy of Christ is given. God specifically says that the serpent will bite Jesus' heel (referring to His crucifixion), but that Jesus will crush his head (referring to His resurrection).

 

In order to believe that Jesus was who he claimed to be, you have to believe in this prophecy, which means you have to take Genesis 1-3 literally. Otherwise, your support for Jesus falls apart, and the Bible becomes pointless fiction. Therefore, if Young Earth Creation is shown to be bunk, the Bible cannot be true.

 

As I am a new "de-con," I am open to the idea I may be wrong, so I invite both Christians and non-Christians to poke at this argument. All I ask is that you be gentle with me.

 

 

I cannot go through the Old and New Testament and fully understand every verse. There are verses I cannot explain. This does not deter me from my Christian faith.   I do however understand the major theme and fundamental message of scripture: That God created the universe and is revealed in the person and work of Jesus. It’s a simple message. Easy to understand.

 

Concerning Genesis 1-3:

 

The major point is that God created the heavens and the earth.

 

From the early church How to view this has been an ongoing discussing among Christians. Origen, in the third century, opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. Augustine,in the early fifth century the first chapters of Genesis were written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.  This was a common view by many. It fair to say that the history of Christian thought has not been consistently dominated by proponents of a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

Young Earth creationists claim that their view has its earliest roots in ancient Jewish commentaries. Protestants reformers like John Calvin and Martin Luther believed in a literal interpretation.

 

I have tried to read both viewpoints of the Old Earth Creationism and Young Creationism. I’m inclined to accept OEC as the correct reading of the creation account but I really haven’t decided. It makes for an interesting study.

 

One important thing about OEC is that although the earth is extremely old, humans are a more recent creation.

 

I don’t see how either one of these viewpoints would invalidate the  prophecy concerning Christ in Genesis 3:15.

[mymistake]

  I do however understand the major theme and fundamental message of scripture: That God created the universe and is revealed in the person and work of Jesus. It’s a simple message. Easy to understand.

 

 

 

How can Jesus be the theme of the whole Bible when Jesus is never mentioned until the New Testament?  Looks to me like the New Testament was forced onto the Old Testament in a way that does not fit.

 

 

 

I don’t see how either one of these viewpoints would invalidate the  prophecy concerning Christ in Genesis 3:15.

 

There is no prophecy of Christ in Genesis 3.  Christ isn't mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament.  Gen 3:15 is a Bronze Age myth that explains why humans hate snakes.  Christ is not the woman.  The words "her offspring" does not say Jesus Christ.  Her offspring means all humanity.  

 

Jesus Fucking Christ, how can people be so brainwashed?

[Penguin]

Genesis 3:15

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel.”

 

Jesus isn't the woman. He's the "Seed" ("...thou shalt bruise His heel"). Christians take this to be a prophecy of Christ (see also Psalm 41:9 and John 13:18). In order to believe in the literal prophecy, however, you have to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. If the "six days" are metaphorical, then so is everything else.

[mymistake]

Genesis 3:15

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel.”

 

Jesus isn't the woman. He's the "Seed" ("...thou shalt bruise His heel"). Christians take this to be a prophecy of Christ (see also Psalm 41:9 and John 13:18).

 

 

It simply isn't true.  Christians must lie.  They lie to themselves.  They lie to each other.  They lie to those they seek to convert.  Jesus can't be the way, the truth and the life if everything about Jesus is a lie.

[ironhorse]

Genesis 3:15

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel.”

 

Jesus isn't the woman. He's the "Seed" ("...thou shalt bruise His heel"). Christians take this to be a prophecy of Christ (see also Psalm 41:9 and John 13:18). In order to believe in the literal prophecy, however, you have to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. If the "six days" are metaphorical, then so is everything else.

 

By "so is everything else" do you mean all of scripture?

[Penguin]

 

Genesis 3:15

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel.”

 

Jesus isn't the woman. He's the "Seed" ("...thou shalt bruise His heel"). Christians take this to be a prophecy of Christ (see also Psalm 41:9 and John 13:18). In order to believe in the literal prophecy, however, you have to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. If the "six days" are metaphorical, then so is everything else.

 

By "so is everything else" do you mean all of scripture?

 

There is a snowball effect, yes, but I don't think it necessarily goes through all of Scripture. Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, and so on could have been real people. The genealogy provided from Adam to Noah could be legitimate, and therefore there could have been a "global" Flood of some kind ("global" here meaning the inhabited world, not the entire Earth). Point is, before the genealogy provided from Adam to Noah, if you don't take it literally, then how can you believe Jesus was who he claimed to be?

[bornagainathiest]

 

Christians,

 

There are several theories for how the world began. Germane to this discussion are:

 

1. Young Earth Creationism -- The belief the earth is thousands of years old. In this view, the "six days" in which God created the Earth are seen as 24-hour periods.

 

2. Other religious theories -- Any and all non-scientific interpretations of Creation.

 

3. Scientific Theories -- This encompasses any and all scientific theories as to how the Earth came into being.

 

My argument: Young Earth Creation must be the only theory Christians can ascribe to, or the Bible as a whole is not valid.

 

Evidence: The story of Creation includes the creation of man and woman. It also includes the instructions not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This story then goes on to tie into the story of Adam and Eve's temptation in Eden and their punishment for their sin. In that punishment, a prophecy of Christ is given. God specifically says that the serpent will bite Jesus' heel (referring to His crucifixion), but that Jesus will crush his head (referring to His resurrection).

 

In order to believe that Jesus was who he claimed to be, you have to believe in this prophecy, which means you have to take Genesis 1-3 literally. Otherwise, your support for Jesus falls apart, and the Bible becomes pointless fiction. Therefore, if Young Earth Creation is shown to be bunk, the Bible cannot be true.

 

As I am a new "de-con," I am open to the idea I may be wrong, so I invite both Christians and non-Christians to poke at this argument. All I ask is that you be gentle with me.

 

 

I cannot go through the Old and New Testament and fully understand every verse. There are verses I cannot explain. This does not deter me from my Christian faith.   I do however understand the major theme and fundamental message of scripture: That God created the universe and is revealed in the person and work of Jesus. It’s a simple message. Easy to understand.

 

No, that's wrong Ironhorse.

The heavens do NOT declare the glory of ther lord.  Please learn about and understand cosmology and you will see that Genesis 1:1 is not even a symbolic, allegorical or metaphorical description of what science has shown us about the cosmos.  It's simply wrong.  Which means that the entire Bible is wrong.  You are simply sustaining your Christian faith by avoidance.  By hiding within the pages of the Bibles.  By deliberately not learning and understanding the true nature of the cosmos.

 

Concerning Genesis 1-3:

 

The major point is that God created the heavens and the earth.

 

No.  He didn't.  Cosmology tells us that this is not so.  Please stop avoiding the facts.

 

From the early church How to view this has been an ongoing discussing among Christians. Origen, in the third century, opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. Augustine,in the early fifth century the first chapters of Genesis were written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.  This was a common view by many. It fair to say that the history of Christian thought has not been consistently dominated by proponents of a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

Young Earth creationists claim that their view has its earliest roots in ancient Jewish commentaries. Protestants reformers like John Calvin and Martin Luther believed in a literal interpretation.

 

I have tried to read both viewpoints of the Old Earth Creationism and Young Creationism. I’m inclined to accept OEC as the correct reading of the creation account but I really haven’t decided. It makes for an interesting study.

 

One important thing about OEC is that although the earth is extremely old, humans are a more recent creation.

 

I don’t see how either one of these viewpoints would invalidate the  prophecy concerning Christ in Genesis 3:15.

 

 

This prophecy (like all others) is invalidated by the falsity of Genesis 1:1.

 

Since there is no requirement for a creator, to believe in him by faith is to live in a fantasy world, Ironhorse.  

Please come back to reality and face up to the facts!

[duderonomy]

Don't forget to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

 

If either of the conflicting genealogies of Jesus in the NT are true, then we can figure that man has been on the Earth about six thousand years. It traces Jesus back to Adam, who was created during the six day period. If Genesis' days of creation are ages instead of literal days, then Adam certainly lived longer than the nine hundred and some years Genesis says he lived.

 

There's just no way to make it fit without taking it all literally, and like others have said, if it's an allegory, then maybe the whole thing is allegory. Maybe Genesis is explaining that God is a Terraforming alien, and I'm The Most High King of Utopia. You have to take it literally and either believe it or not.

 

Also don't forget that the Bible in the book of Romans tells us to look around at nature itself to see God's handiwork. That of course leads us to the fossil record and geology, two more things that contradict the genesis story. Chew on that for a while. 

 

As for the flood, Noah's ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, something that couldn't have happened if the flood was local. It had to be such a flood as to cover the whole world, mountains and all, or again Genesis isn't true.

 

If there was a literal Abraham, there was a literal Adam, a literal world wide flood, a literal talking serpent, a literal magic tree with literal magic fruit. To divide the book into allegory in some parts and not in others, when the book nowhere alludes to any of it being allegorical is silly and dishonest, IMHO. I don't see anywhere in Genesis where we are expected to believe that it is anything other than what it claims to be in the plain text.    

[♦ ficino ♦]

It's an allegory, except when it isn't. You can be certain about the parts that aren't allegory. They're the passages that tell you that some pleasure or other is sin.

 

Where it isn't clear, that's where I come in: your rabbi/priest/imam. Line up at my door for a ruling - say, on what washing machine to buy and where to put it in your house and when to use it and from whom to buy it (my cousin). And don't forget the honorarium at the end of your consultation. I've spent years becoming an expert. (Rabbi so-and-so will tell you something different about the washing machine, but he's not properly observant... )

[mymistake]

Maybe the concept of God is only a metaphor.

[bornagainathiest]

Maybe Ironhorse's understanding selectively fails him whenever his faith is threatened... ?

[mymistake]

Maybe Ironhorse's understanding selectively fails him whenever his faith is threatened... ?

 

 

It is probably caused by Adam and Eve eating magic fruit.

[Guest Furball]

 

That's a different problem from the problem of age. I think evangelical apologists like William Lane Craig are fine with holding to the age of the Earth as 4.5 billion years, or whatever, and of the universe as 13.7 billion. They just do an exegesis of Genesis whereby six days does not mean six days. Craig also holds to the ToE, if I'm not mistaken, but argues that there was a historical Adam and a historical Eve. I think you can get away with being an inerrantist AND holding a form of the ToE if you spin the language of Genesis.

 

 

The problem with this type of interpretation is that it just doesn't square with what the scriptures actually say.  "There was an evening and a morning, the first day", is what is actually written in the text.  You can make the argument that a day with god is like a thousand years based on the new testament; but that still doesn't alter the fact that genesis makes plain that a day consisted of an evening (singular) and a morning (also singular). 

 

This also applies when christians use the same argument to explain how long Adam lived.  god said that Adam would die the day he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; but genesis 5:5 clearly states that Adam lived for 930 years. 

 

1. don't forget the fact that the sun and the moon and the stars were not made until the fourth day

 

2. the christian apologist would say that they did die that day. they died spiritually. that is they died spiritually to god, hence god having to walk in the garden afterwards to physically talk with them, whereas before he could spiritually talk with them.

[mymistake]

 don't forget the fact that the sun and the moon and the stars were not made until the fourth day

 

 

Correct.  To the mind of a Bronze Age goat herder the Earth determines what time is morning or evening.  The Sun, stars and moon obey Earth.  The Sun goes where it is told.  Earth is the boss.  After all Earth is so much bigger than the stars, sun or moon.  They are just little things while Earth is the largest thing in all of creation.

[midniterider]

I cannot go through the Old and New Testament and fully understand every verse. There are verses I cannot explain.  This does not deter me from my Christian faith. 

 

Do you ever wonder if there is some verse you can't explain that it may have been written by a lunatic?

 

I do however understand the major theme and fundamental message of scripture: That God created the universe and is revealed in the person and work of Jesus. It’s a simple message. Easy to understand.

 

Concerning Genesis 1-3:

 

The major point is that God created the heavens and the earth.

 

From the early church How to view this has been an ongoing discussing among Christians. Origen, in the third century, opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. Augustine,in the early fifth century the first chapters of Genesis were written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.  This was a common view by many. It fair to say that the history of Christian thought has not been consistently dominated by proponents of a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

Which one do you believe? Literal Genesis or allegory? So when the Pastor talks about Adam and Eve, do you start crackin up? Why talk about Adam and Eve as if they existed if somewhere else in your head you know that it's just an allegory. How can you take anything said about Adam and Eve seriously when you know, the pastor knows and the whole congregation knows that those people weren't even real? Why even talk about these people?

 

So  you want  us to ignore the lies in the bible that were told to the ignorant sheepherders, but accept the major point that God created the heavens and the earth. If one bible passage is false, why should I believe the others to be true? Why make up some BS story to tell the ignorant sheepherders? Let them gather their own conclusions about origin of the universe.

 

If someone told you a lie and you found out he had lied, would you 'not be deterred' in your faith in his integrity? Or would you be suspicious of other stuff he said? What do you think about Brian Williams? Maybe the major point Brian was trying to make was that the War was really bad over there (by lying about being shot down).

 

Young Earth creationists claim that their view has its earliest roots in ancient Jewish commentaries. Protestants reformers like John Calvin and Martin Luther believed in a literal interpretation.

 

I have tried to read both viewpoints of the Old Earth Creationism and Young Creationism. I’m inclined to accept OEC as the correct reading of the creation account but I really haven’t decided. It makes for an interesting study.

 

One important thing about OEC is that although the earth is extremely old, humans are a more recent creation.

 

I don’t see how either one of these viewpoints would invalidate the  prophecy concerning Christ in Genesis 3:15.

 

If something in the bible isn't supposed to be taken literally , then why pay attention to it at all? 

 

[bornagainathiest]

My friends...

 

I acknowledge that there was much about reality that ancient people couldn't have known about or understood.

But I must also acknowledge that we should not tar everyone with the same disparaging (ignorant goat herders) brush.  There have been exceptions to the rule.  Not all of our ancestors chose to stay in a condition of ignorance.  You see, ignorance isn't down to where and when you were born and how you grew up.  Ignorance is also a matter of personal choice. 

 

Most people choose to close up their eyes and ears and close down their minds - choosing to be ignorant.

Most people opt to blithely accept what they are told and to leave it at that - opting not to know or find out any more.

Most people prefer to believe that they can never understand anything about the truth of reality - preferring to stay ignorant of it.

Most people elect to take the passive path of faith rather than the active path of understanding - electing to deny themselves their full potential.

Most people select ignorance over understanding every time.  They select themselves for ignorance by choice - not by accident of birth or lack of opportunity or social pressure to conform or any other external factor.  Most opt to stop thinking and to stop wanting to understand.  Most deliberately and wilfully choose to be ignorant.

 

Fortunately 'most' is not 'all'.

While most people in the ancient world lived by faith and in ignorance, there were some who chose otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erastothenes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras

 

Please note that I've only listed a few of the most well-known thinkers from ancients times.

Obviously there were many, many more, but due to the fragmentary nature of the records we know of only this 'tip of the iceberg'.  But the message is clear.  For almost all of us ignorance is not a certainty - it's a choice.  Therefore, anyone able to read and write, able to use a computer and able to post in this forum has no excuse when it comes to being ignorant about the true nature of reality.  On the internet the collected knowledge and understanding of the world is there for the taking.   Choosing to deny, avoid or ignore this resource is a crime against one's own potential.  Therefore, trusting in the lord with all your heart and leaning not on your own understanding (or anyone else's) as per Proverbs 3 : 5 is...

.

.

.

...choosing to be ignorant and to stay in ignorance. 

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[Ravenstar]

There are tons of great thinkers in ancient history, not one of them was Hebrew, unfortunately - though the Jewish people have made up for that in modern times in the sciences. (check the ethnicity of Nobel prize winners…overwhelmingly Jewish - probably because they value education so much) Though the ancients were working with very simple tools, observations and cultures where the supernatural was accepted some of the concepts and ideas and practices (medicine anyone - mathematics?) is actually quite astounding. All pagans.. or even atheists.

 

The astronomers/astrologers of ancient Sumeria and Persia, the alchemists of many countries, the surgeons and architects of Egypt, the lawmakers and engineers of Mesopotamia, the mathematicians of Greece, the philosophers and naturalists. The Chinese… even the Mayan and Inca - with their fabulous cities, temples and agriculture. (Christian) Europe was in a very dark place for over a thousand years before they started studying the writings of the great Greek and Roman thinkers - THAT is what sparked the renaissances.

 

There is little of scientific or naturalist value in the Bible, or astronomical - though there's plenty of astrology  .

 

Let's look at some of the more glaring stuff:

 

There is no light without the sun, there are no days and nights without the sun GE 1:3-5, 14-19, plants won't grow without sunlight (except for certain fungi) GE 1:12, 16, every plant is NOT good to eat GE 1:29,

 

All of humanity comes from woman (actually all sexually reproducing creatures - though some are hermaphroditic) - so having a man created first is absurd - females can also reproduce through parthenogenesis - males can't.

 

There are two different creation stories in the Bible, one of them ripped off almost word for word from Babylonia (Akkadia? Chaldea? can't remember which one - same place though)

 

Rainbows are refractions of light and have existed as long as light and a refractory substance has, GE 9:12-16

 

GE 30:37-43 Jacob alters the genetic characteristics of cattle by letting them view a striped rod. Bwahahahahaha… no. (Note: His purpose in doing so was to fleece Laban of his cattle. Not an honest guy.)

 

Snakes do not have the physical equipment to speak… any language, neither do donkeys.

 

Amelek is NOT forgotten EX 17:14, DT 25:19 

 

There are no winged creatures with four legs.. 2, yes, 6 yes…. 4, no. 

 

LE 11:20-21 Rabbits do not chew their cud.

 

 LE 11:6 Clothing and houses can't have leprosy, sacrificing doves and using their blood, and making magical incantations will not cure one of leprosy, LE 14:49-53. 

 

Bats are not birds, the sun and moon have never stood still in the sky, hair does not imbue strength, 

 

2KI 16:2, 20, 18:1-2 Ahaz obviously fathered a son at the age of 10 or 11 (hehehe.. sure he did) 

 

GE 4:17 Cain built and populated a city in only 2 generations. (with only 3 people on the earth, amazing)

 

Solomon sacrificed 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep in one week. This is 845+ animals per hour, 14+ animals per minute, for seven days straight. 

 

1KI 6:2, 2CH 3:3 Solomon's temple was only about ninety feet long by thirty feet wide, yet: 

  1KI 5:15-16 153,300 persons were employed to build it. 
  1KI 6:38 It took seven years to build. 
  1CH 22:14 ~7,500,000 lbs. of gold and ~75,000,000 lbs. of silver were used. 

  1CH 23:4 24,000 supervisors and 6,000 officials and judges were employed to manage it. (Note: Inasmuch as there seems to be uncertainty as to the exact weight of the biblical talent, some estimates place the weight of gold at more than 13,000,000 lbs. and the weight of silver at more than 116,000,000 lbs.)

 

Ahaziah was forty-two when he became king; he succeeded his father, who died at the age of forty. Thus, Ahaziah was two years older than his father. 1 Kings 22:40

 

GE 18:1, 7-8 God eats solid food with Abraham.

 

GE 32:24-30 God takes part in a wrestling match. He wins by injuring Jacob's hip 

 

GE 6:4 There were giants on the earth at one time. (Note: No evidence exists to supports this assertion.)

 

Thought occurs in the heart. The kidneys ("reins") are the seat of conscience.(Note: This is not merely a poetic use of these terms, as is now claimed. In early times, it was actually believed that various body organs other than the brain were responsible for our thoughts, feelings, actions and the like. The heart was believed to be the seat of thought processes and beliefs, while the kidneys were thought to be the seat of conscience.) ES 6:6, JB 19:27, PS 7:9, 16:7, 73:21, PR 23:7, 16, IS 10:7, JE 11:20, 17:10, 20:12, MT 9:4, LK 2:19,9:47, AC 8:22, RO 10:9-10, HE 4:12, RE 2:23

 

Both physical and mental illness are caused by demon possession and can be cured by exorcism. MT 4:23-24, 9:32-33, 12:22, 17:14-18, MK 1:23-26, 32-34, 5:2-16, 9:17-29, 16:9, LK 11:14, 4:33-35, 8:2,27-36, 9:38-42, AC 8:7, 16:16-18

 

MT 27:52-53 The bodies of dead saints arise and go in force in the city. Zombies!

 

HE 7:1-3 Melchizedek had no mother or father, no beginning or end. Spontaneous existence!

 

RE 14:1-4 Heaven is to be inhabited in part by 144,000 virgin men who have not been "defiled" by women. (lovely misogyny right there)

 

RE 21:16 The city of New Jerusalem (where the residents of heaven reside) is only about 1500 miles square.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Ravenstar, you win a set of yoga pants for this one! I love the stats you pulled up on Solomon's Temple!