ZOT! Does Fossil Record Discredit Literal Biblical Interpretation?

War On Terror ^ | Today | xxkoguxx

[Alamo-Girl]

Ahhhh ... I get it now! (Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees... sorry about that!)

[Quix]

THX/

[Quix]

THX/

[Edit35]

Does it even matter? A person's salvation is not dependent on how old he/she believes the universe to be, but whether he/she believes in Christ as Lord and Savior.

You are 1000 percent correct, my friend.

Fortunately, God made mankind with an insatiable curiosity of how our world works. It is instinctive for each of us to crave knowledge on how our world works.

Each one of us, I'm certain, has spent much time wondering about the inner workings of the universe.

[concretebob]

The first verse states:
"in the beginning,..."i.e. from the start, the first time.."God created Heaven and earth." Period, end of sentence.
My interpretation, and it comes from believing that there are beings God created to asssit him in running things.
Some of these beings left the ranch, so to speak, and screwed things up.
God got mad, punished them, and started over.
It's all a matter of interpretation, and belief systems.

[concretebob]

Sumerian texts do not contradict the Bible, they describe events similar to, and in some cases, exactly as the Bible describes, including the war in Heaven between Michael and God's army and Satan and his army.
Thats my point, these events have happened before.
If they happened before the events described in the Bible, then there was a Creation PRIOR to Genesis 1:2.

[concretebob]

Just for giggles, check this out
Perhaps I read too much, and believe most of what I read, if it seems to make sense.
http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/BiblicalInfoOfGiants.htm

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the url!

It was an interesting read - but I consider it to be speculative, much like my own article on Origins and Scriptures is speculative.

Scripture is self-authenticating by the indwelling Spirit. We know it is Truth, because He confirms it to us. He brings the Scriptures alive within us.

Likewise, other manuscripts which are directly referenced by Scripture as authority also must have an element of Truth. I'm thinking here of the book of Enoch which is referenced by Jude and is paraphrased some 100 times in the New Testament.

However, the book of Enoch was not preserved over the years - except in fragments in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are several versions, e.g. Ethopic, Slavic. The most current translation is not available on the internet, the Charlesworth translation. Nevertheless, when I read the book of Enoch much of it rings True in the Spirit.

Sometimes in just everyday conversation a person will say something which rings True in the Spirit. As an example, a sweet blue-haired lady in church, when the minister was speaking about Peter's failed attempt to walk across the water to Christ, said "sinking wasn't his job." That rang True although the Scriptures do not put it that way.

Likewise there are symbols in Scripture and parables which are revealed to us very personally. For instance, I perceive the rapture in the parable of the ten virgins. Most people do not.

There are other ancient manuscripts - particularly the musings of the early church fathers - which have a ring of Truth. Ditto for some of the rabbianic manuscripts, such as the explanation of why Abraham left his father (as the story goes, his dad was a maker of household idols).

Most modern day commentaries and speculations leave me cold. I did have a ring of Truth in reading "Angels on Assignment" when the minister was speaking of the blood of Christ, the feasts and the hyper-cube drawn by a visiting angel. Of all the Hal Lindsey books, "Combat Faith" rings the strongest.

But on matters of the Spirit, I cannot accept anyone's speculation as Truth including the doctrine of men (Mark 7:7).

Any hoot, that's my two cents...

[concretebob]

and it's worth alot more than 2 cents, IMHO. Thank You

[Quix]

Let's see if this works. Haven't checked it out yet. Maybe later tonight.

CLICK HERE for the link http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/BiblicalInfoOfGiants.htm

HMMMMM, STILL NOT SURE IT'S GOING TO WORK. I tried.

[Safrguns]

Point: Time passes between many verses... whether it be seconds, centuring, or milleniums.

Point: The six days of creation begins with the creation of light... not the earth. Gen 1:2 - "and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters"

What waters??? waters on the earth maybe??? According to verse 2, the earth had already been created!

Point: God divided the light from the darkness...So the evening and morning were the FIRST DAY
Conclusion: We DONT know how much time passes between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis chapter 1. However, we do know that creation of the earth occurred in the beginning, and BEFORE the first day.

Point: While the bible is generally chronological, there are many instances of future and past references.
Conclusion: There may be references later in the bible which refer back to the time period (undefined in Genesis) between verse 1 and 2.

[Hajman]

If there was a time period between Genesis 1:1, and Gensis 1:2, why did God have to recreate everything? Even if there was a time period there (which Genesis doesn't give reason to believe), it'd be completely irrevelent after Genesis 1:2 after everything was re-made. So either the time period doesn't exist, or it does exist, but it doesn't matter after Genesis 1:2.

-The Hajman-

[Safrguns]

I believe it's the latter. I don't think that a pre-Adamic civilization is crucial to the message of the Gospel... otherwise there would be far more scriptures covering this period.

I find it interesting only because it goes a long way to explaining the differences between a fallen angel, and a demon (disembodied evil spirit). It also gives an alternate point of view to explain fossil remains which pre-date 6000 years. Even the bible that I read suggests in the prefaces that the earth is 6000 years old... and if you are speaking of the "re-made" earth, it is correct. However, I believe science is correct when it says that the earth itself is actually much older.

[Safrguns]

If there was a time period between Genesis 1:1, and Gensis 1:2, why did God have to recreate everything?

The original greek texts uses a phrase which is seen again in revelations, suggesting that the earth was actually destroyed in Genesis 1:2. I believe the phrase is Tofu Bofu - formless and void - laid waste.

[Hajman]

I find it interesting only because it goes a long way to explaining the differences between a fallen angel, and a demon (disembodied evil spirit). It also gives an alternate point of view to explain fossil remains which pre-date 6000 years. Even the bible that I read suggests in the prefaces that the earth is 6000 years old... and if you are speaking of the "re-made" earth, it is correct. However, I believe science is correct when it says that the earth itself is actually much older.

I found a plausible explination for the fallen between Genesis 1:1, and when the snake visits Eve. What's not stated is how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. Long enough for Adam to name all the creatures, etc. Could have been long enough for a rebellion in Heaven. We get a small clue from Genesis 5:3 - And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:. Seth was born after Abel was slain. They could have been in the garden for a hundred years. (Even if we account for physical age, Adam still could have been in the garden for up to around 80 years or so).

The original greek texts uses a phrase which is seen again in revelations, suggesting that the earth was actually destroyed in Genesis 1:2. I believe the phrase is Tofu Bofu - formless and void - laid waste.

The terms were tohuw [Strong's 08414] (which is 'formless', 'nothingness') and bohuw [Strong's 0922] (which is emptiness, void, waste) [Genesis 1:2] Neither term reads as a verb (which 'laid waste' would be, either in present or past tense).

-The Hajman-

[Hajman]

However, I believe science is correct when it says that the earth itself is actually much older.

Science doesn't say this. Man's interpretation of the evidence, man's theory, says this.

-The Hajman-

[Safrguns]

I found a plausible explination for the fallen between Genesis 1:1, and when the snake visits Eve. I doubt this, because one of Gods reasons for creating man was to answer Lucifer's challenge that no created creature of God's would choose service to Him forever... that eventually, any intelligent creation with free will would rebel.

[Hajman]

I doubt this, because one of Gods reasons for creating man was to answer Lucifer's challenge that no created creature of God's would choose service to Him forever... that eventually, any intelligent creation with free will would rebel.

Where's this found?

-The Hajman-

[Safrguns]

I'll have to look it up

[Safrguns]

Couldn't find it. The closest I could come was in Job where God asked Satan if he had considered Job who was righteous and who feared God... suggesting that God was responding to a previous challenge of sorts. Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense that God would offer up Job for testing without reason.

I guess for now, i'll have to establish my previous point as opinion, unless someone else can help with scriptures addressing Satan's challenges to God.