ZOT! Does Fossil Record Discredit Literal Biblical Interpretation?

War On Terror ^ | Today | xxkoguxx

[ReasonedThought]

The poster on the link says that since the fossil record and carbon-dating says the earth is millions of years old but the biblical record shows an earth roughly 6000 years old. The proof for that is here http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/timeline.htm. Anyway the question is, how can Christians like myself reconcile this? Has science discredited a literal interpretation of the Bible of our Lord?

[Tarpaulin]

Just a suggestion:

[mhking]

This troll's source document is http://gamefaqs.com/

[Natchez Hawk]

Excellent Post.

[hiredhand]

I was speaking of "ultimately". This posting reeks of the same liberal midset that wiggles its way into the public education with "sound reason". The result is that people trust God less.

When I'm sick, I trust them both! :-) But in the case of the original posting, both (science and God) simply can't be trusted to be true. It has to be one or the other. To trust one, makes the other a lie. The "world view" is that each is mutually exclusive. Me trusting between my doctor, and minister presents no such delimma.

The problem with this original posting is that it causes a lot of bickering and doubt amongst believers. But in the end, it changes nothing. :-)

[82Marine89]

'War on Terror' is a game site. What poser poster are you talking about?

[hiredhand]

Yeah...I've been waiting for something like that. :-) It was a matter of time.

[Natchez Hawk]

I wasn't able to see the poster he was talking about, but I certainly agree it seems somebody was trying to light a fire.

[Natchez Hawk]

I can't even find the poster refered to at the site. But, I do agree it seems like somebody is trying to start a fire.

[dog breath]

I could never see where one really conflicts with the other. I don't believe that time is of any relevance to God. God might of spent millions of years creating life and to God it would be as nothing. Why do people try to put lines around their faith? The Word is in the Bible but the interpretations are in the minds of man. What is a day in the mind of God? Our minds are too small to contain the true nature of the universe with either science or religion. The hand of God is everywhere and what are we but dust with a soul. What tools are used to fashion the creation is up to the creator and evolution may of been such a tool. I believe that is idiotic to deny God's existence and folly to claim that you have the only true understanding of the Word of God.

[82Marine89]

[Tarpaulin]

Dead troll on aisle 26, ReasonedThought pending...

VALHALLA! I AM COMING!

[hiredhand]

I wasn't able to see the poster he was talking about, but I certainly agree it seems somebody was trying to light a fire.

It DOES seem that way. :-)

[hiredhand]

Yep...here come the V.Ks...and Pudge the Indestructible!

[82Marine89]

Results are in...It's a Troll.

[Edit35]

Anyway the question is, how can Christians like myself reconcile this?

The Bible is filled with allegorical passages which reveal God's truth through parables and other abstract means.

Why is it so hard for some Christians to consider the possibility Genesis interpretation that God "created the heavens and the earth" during which He eventually created life, (animals, fish, dinosaurs, birds, etc) which evolved to THE point in time in which he created Mankind.

Perhaps God did it over billions of years. Why would God need a "rest" after Six days, if the creation passage is not symbolic.

I consider myself to be a heaven-bound Christian, but sometimes I get frustrated by fundamentalists who are certain, absolutely certain, that THEIR version of Biblical passages must be taken the way they say, or else.

[Hajman]

"In the beginning the earth BECAME void. ...

Actually, the word is become, not became, which doesn't require a previously existing earth that was destroyed and/or remade. Genesis 1:2, and the term was in the passage: hayah [Strong's 01961].

and next, in the command to Adam and Eve the Lord told the to 'go and REplenish the earth'. In my book, you can't REplenish or REfill what has not be previously filled.

This one is a difference in the meaning of a word that's changed after a period of time. Replenish, as used in the KJV when it was translated, meant "to fill", not "to fill again". That's a modern meaning (one needs to read older translations in the definitional context of that time, not of the present). However, even now replenish can mean "to fill" without requiring a pre-existing group. Merriam-Webster [replenish]: definition 1a: to fill with persons or animals. 2b has the common definition used today: to fill or build up again. This aside, the hebrew term used is male' [Strong's 04390], which means "to fill, be full", not "to fill again" (which is actually a different word in hebrew, shana [Strong's 08132]).

-The Hajman-

[dirtboy]

Has science discredited a literal interpretation of the Bible of our Lord?

I respect honest Christian skeptics of evolution even as I debate them.

I doubt, however, that you are either Christian or honest.

[dirtboy]

We have a creatio-evo troll. May we put aside our differences long enough to thoroughly spite and ridicule this cretin.

[pipecorp]

Thank you. (Too often we view old works through "new" eyes)