<p>From my readings, Genesis wasn't translated in the correct order. This issue also appears with the ordering of several of the books of the Bible, as well as chapters within the books. Part of this has to do with the fact that many of the original manuscripts were not numbered...the numbering and chaptering and sequence are afterthoughts by man "to make it less confusing". In all of my years, and that of my family's...many of which have been devout Pastors for many, many years, we've never had a problem reconciling the Genesis account of Creation.</p>
<p>Raiderade,</p>
<p>Point to some examples.,....what parts of the accepted Bible have been proven as historically inaccurate?</p>
<p>Separate from my issues with evolution because of my faith, I have issues because of the science. Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics: [paraphrased]everything heads toward entropy (chaos). Do I believe that there are genetic mutations that occur, via happenstance or environment, yes ... so I do believe in a subtle change that might occur within a species. However, I do not believe that one species evolves into another.</p>
<p>zebes</p>
<p>Nikki, there is no historical record of the exodus (and that is a rather large part of the OT)</p>
<p>Nikki, what about the flood. Do you believe that it is was a true "global flood" or do you believe that it was a regional flood, or just a parable (this isnt an attack, I am just trying to become more familiar with your belief system). </p>
<p>In addition, I know all of those books do not talk about wealth, but wealth was a specific topic that KJ wanted to alter as he and his council edited the bible. My point still stands too. If the bible is the "inspired word of god" which bible is true. I agree that both bibles have their merits, but you must understand that that was not my original point. My point was that if you quote the bible, and use it as the literal basis of your faith, which bible should you use, because there are many types of them. And if it is "divinely inspired" than what power does a group of educated men in the 1600s have to revise it.</p>
<p>Tboone,</p>
<p>There is historical evidence that the exodus occurred. One secular document is the Ipuwer Papyrus. In Ipuwer Papyrus 2:5-6: Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere. (See Exodus 7:21). Ipuwer Papyrus 2:10 states The river is blood (see Exodus 7:20). Ipuwer Papyrus 2:10 also states Men shrank from tasting...and thirst for water (Exodus 7:24). Ipuwer Papyrus 9:23: THe fire ran along the ground. There was hail and fire mingled with the hail (Exodus 9:25). Ipuwer Papyrus 9:11: The land is not light (Exodus 10:22). Ipuwer Papyrus 5:5 All animals, their hearts weep. Cattle moan (Exodus 9:3). Ipuwer Papyrus 2:13: He who places his brother in the ground is everywhere (Exodus 12:27). Ipuwer Papyrus 4:3 Forsooth, the children of princes are dashed against the walls (Exodus 12:29). Ipuwer Papyrus 6:12 Forsooth the children of the princes are cast out in the streets (Exodus 12:30). Ipuwer Papyrus 3:14 It is groaning that is throughout the land, mingled with lamentations (Exodus 12:30).</p>
<p>And yes, since I believe in a literal Creation story as foretold in Genesis, I also believe in a literal global flood that killed all who were not on the Ark.</p>
<p>When it comes to today's English Bible's, I do not subscribe to just one translation. As stated earlier, I use multiple translations, including Strong's to study God's word. When I simply want to read for leisure, I may just read one translation at a time, but studying passages always means multiple translations side by side, comparing word by word, looking to the original text, meaning, and lifestyles of the times. And I am kindof partial to the 1611 version of the KJV Bible, since it drew from my ancestor's translations in the 1500's.</p>
<p>I495, I don't quite get your faith; you say you place your trust in God and not the Bible or the Word. John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. </p>
<p>What I'm saying is, God has ordered us to put our trust in the Bible; why, then wouldn't you? Do you not believe in the Bible for the sake of convenience? </p>
<p>Tboone, you make it sound like all Protestants are vehemently against all Catholics. We may have different interpretations of the Bible, but if God is going to save them then God is going to save them. Not all church-goers are saved, and conversely, people that don't go to church won't automatically be damned. God has his ways in bringing people back to Him. </p>
<p>As for the history of the Bible, I don't have much to say because I'm not a theologist or whatever and I won't act like one. However, I do know that the Bible is NOT about trying to understand it through human intellect; If you put faith into the Bible when you are reading it, you will be given revelation that transcends any logic or scope of human understanding. That is faith. Claiming that you will accept God only after you have understood God and the Word is not faith; that is logic. </p>
<p>Again, I apologize for sounding too pedantic on an online forum but I've experienced way too many great things in my life, because of Him, to pass without saying something, lol.</p>
<p>Nikki, that doccument you referred to is a poem. I will admit that I have not heard of it before, but just looking at wikipedia, this is what comes up:</p>
<p>"The Ipuwer Papyrus is a single surviving papyrus holding an ancient Egyptian poem, called The Admonitions of Ipuwer[1] or The Dialogue of Ipuwer and the Lord of All.[2] Its official designation is Papyrus Leiden I 344 recto[3]. It is housed in the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities, the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden, Netherlands, after being purchased from Giovanni Anastasi, the Swedish consul to Egypt, in 1828.</p>
<p>Ipuwer describes Egypt as afflicted by natural disasters and in a state of chaos, a topsy-turvy world where the poor have become rich, and the rich poor, and warfare, famine and death are everywhere. One symptom of this collapse of order is the lament that servants are leaving their servitude and acting rebelliously. Because of this, and such statements as "the River is blood", some have interpreted the document as an Egyptian account of the Plagues of Egypt and the Exodus in the Old Testament of the Bible, and it is often cited as proof for the Biblical account by various religious organisations[5][6].</p>
<p>David Rohl recently proposed a revised chronology, dating the Exodus to the Second Intermediate Period, in which case Ipuwer might refer to that event. However, Rohl's chronology has been rejected by Kenneth Kitchen.[7]. Moreover, the association of Ipuwer with the Exodus is generally rejected by Egyptologists, those who interpret the Exodus as a historical event generally place it later, in the reign of Ramesses II. This in spite of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence from archaeology or from any documents that Ramses II had to deal with the Ten Plagues or anything like them, or that he chased after runaway slaves. Some have alternatively interpreted the poem's references to disturbances in nature as relating to the Thera eruption, which according to dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating occurred ca. 1650-1600 BCE."</p>
<p>I know I know, wikipedia is not a rigorous source, blah blah.</p>
<p>Regardless, the generally accepted time period for the exodus was during the reign of Ramses II. There is no record of any of the events of the exodus occuring during his reign, and his reign was well recorded by egyptian scribes. Archealogical digs have not found any evidence for the exodus either. The lone piece of evidence is a poem written by an egyptian 300 or more years before the generally proposed time of the exodus.</p>
<p>Interesting thread. </p>
<p>Is it possible that man will justify whatever reality he wants? What is truth? Science has given man more tools to justify a reality devoid of greater meaning, and more freedom to instill our own. </p>
<p>The longer I delve into the human mind, the closer I inch towards a nihilistic worldview.</p>
<p>^ no, not really,</p>
<p>I actually seek the truth through a deeper understanding of what reality actually is. I know where you are coming from though. My arguing the validity of her posts does not mean that they have no validity, and vice versa</p>
<p>Tboone,</p>
<p>No where except Wikipedia or anti-Christian websites do I find that the Ipiwer Papyrus is considered just a poem. Also, just because there is limited archeological evidence to support the Exodus, it doesn't mean it didn't occur. There is no scientific evidence to support evolution or the Big-Bang theory (which is why they are called theories)...but people still hold fast to the ideas. Many historical events of the ancient times cannot be adequately supported by archeological evidence, but that doesn't remove the historical fact from our lives.</p>
<p>Also, one should know better than to rely on anything posted on Wikipedia because any fool can submit something to Wikipedia as fact, even if it is absolutely false.</p>
<p>"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."</p>
<p>In the beginning, there were no Bibles--let alone documents of any time. The "Word" refers to Jesus, not the book I have upstairs. That's why I place my faith in Christ, not a book with human fingerprints on it. </p>
<p>Powerbomb, I agree that faith in God can lead to great things, including the greatest thing of all--salvation. I've experienced that same feeling as you! I just don't feel that one need view the Bible to be infallible to receive the Holy Spirit or accept Jesus as their Savior.</p>
<p>1495, then what do you think Jesus meant by the "Word"? I have been long taught that the Bible is the Word and that the Word is God. The word DOES refer to Jesus and your book upstairs. Also, the Word or the "Bible" did exist in the beginning. I don't think the Bible should be considered a mere "document." </p>
<p>Also, for those thinking that some of the events mentioned in the Old Testament are legends, you have to realize that the Old testament period and the New Testament period were two very different times. The Old testament period was a period of Law and the tabernacle...that can explain the "miraculous" events...</p>
<p>As I write this, I can't seem to put much of these into words...All I can tell you is search for answers in the Bible.</p>
<p>I believe that I495's observations might benefit from some expansion. Indeed, when the Bible notes "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." that Word which was God and thus Jesus is in fact now the printed Bible. Most Christians would agree that the Bible is in fact the inspired communication of and from God that we might have his instructions in writing.</p>
<p>My thoughts on the subject:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>First, I am glad this thread <em>is</em> serious, and the discussion is very enlightening.</p></li>
<li><p>The Bible is not a science book. Just because germs are not mentioned in the Bible does not mean that germs do not exist. The Bible is not a history book per se, either. Rather, it is the story of the relationship between God and Man.</p></li>
<li><p>Rather than seeing the story of the creation as a parable, I view it slightly differently, as illustrated by this example: When a very young child asks his/her parents where he/she came from, the parents are presented with a bit of a dilemma: They want to tell the TRUTH, but they also know that the child is not capable of understanding the full story. It's more than explaining sex before the child can understand; it's all of the things that lead to attraction, love, marriage, deciding on a child, living together,... everything leading up to the moment of birth. So the parent explains something TRUE, but at a level that child can grasp and understand. The story comes out something like, "Mommy and Daddy loved each other very much, got married, and you grew inside of Mommy until you were born." As the child grows and becomes more experienced, he/she becomes capable of understanding more fully. An adult would never take the original story and say that not only is it the truth, but it is the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>So now I ask you: the (true) story of birth is devoid of many complexities because of the gulf between the mind/experiences/understanding of an adult vs. a child. But how much greater must the gulf be between the "mind"/"experiences"/"understanding" of God vs us? To claim that the Original Story is the TOTAL story without additional complexities is to deny that gulf, and in my not so humble opinion, somewhat denigrates God. </p>
<p>When we say that man was made in the "image of God" why do we immediately go to a physical, 3-dimensional view that God might look like us? Might not it mean more more, as in being made with a Soul, being made with the ability to love others, being made with an ability to grow in understanding over the multitudes of time? </p>
<p>Just my view.</p>
<p>And nicely expressed! Could be. We'll not know in this life, but I think your notion about the Soul, ability to love, being able to grow in our wisdom, perhaps being free could well be illustrations of what God means about being made in His image. (Some might argue and I might be one of them that we in fact are more free than God is ...He cannot choose to lie, do evil, be wrong. His nature won't allow it.</p>
<p>I have just took a look at your thread, and it is very interesting. And i enjoy the opportunity to discuss these ideas in a seriously open-minded way.</p>
<p>First, I wanted to respond to what nikkiil said, about how there is no evidence of evolution and the big ban:
1. There are organs in our bodies that we no longer use. As a species we have changed over time to adapt to our environment and what kind of things we consume.</p>
<ol>
<li>As we improve our telescopes and technology, we are slowly learning more about our universe. I read an article not too long ago, which shows that there seems to be s contiously outward moving force in the universe - suggesting that at one time, each galaxy was closer to each other. If we follow that logic, It would seem that something had to start the movement, i.e. some kind of "bang."</li>
</ol>
<p>I am not saying this is the only way to look at it, but I am suggesting that both ideas of creationism and evolution can co-exist.</p>
<p>College...how do you know that there is no use of those organs? Just because they can be removed yet we still live? Maybe the quality of life isn't as good without those organs...maybe we become more susceptable to other ailments without them. Medicine doesn't have all of the answers. Heck, it wasn't that long ago that scientists and medical professions were screaming to avoid eggs at all costs....now they say that eggs in moderation are actually healthy for us. This isn't the first scientifc/medical "whoops"....and it won't be the last.</p>
<p>And regarding the adaptions to our environment and food...its just as you called it, an adaption, not evolution. Man has indeed adapted to this planet....we adapt when we move from, say sunny Florida to freezing Maine. But that doesn't mean we have evolved from some premordial ooze.</p>
<p>The human eye, for example, is so complex that the medical and scientific "experts" can't even figure everything out about it....and people want us to believe that this complexity "just happened by chance"??</p>
<p>Taking the Bible literally in ever aspect is ridiculous. Im supposed to believe everything is literal because Constantine decided to put it in his bible. Please. </p>
<p>What about the Gospel of Thomas and other pagan texts? Im sorry the early Catholic fathers didn't like these, they must not be a reflection of Jesus's character and teaching.</p>
<p>The Bible is a work of MEN about God. MEN chose what to put into the bible and what to keep out. Just look at revelations, which most Biblical scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) account for being written hundreds of years after Jesus. Am I supposed to take this literally because the early Popes/Constantine found this book to be enlightening?</p>
<p>^that was my point earlier, thank you for making it more concise,</p>
<p>^^, there is a muscle in great ape's forearm that they have and use for climbing, the analogous muscle in humans appears in only 1/7 of the population, it is always found in a state of atrophy, and its rate of occurance in the speciese (humans) is in decline. We are evolving away from the use of that muscle. </p>
<p>Vestigiality</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>Another common vestigal structure is wisdom teeth. The reason the human popluation needs them to be removed is because over time, humans jaws have shrunk because they no longer need strong jaws and flat large teeth to break up the cellulose fibers that are in plants. </p>
<p>There are also vestigial molecular structures in humans, which are no longer in use but may indicate common ancestry with other species. One example of this is L-gulonolactone oxidase, a gene that is functional in most other mammals and produces an enzyme that synthesizes Vitamin C. In humans and other primates, a mutation disabled the gene and made it unable to produce the enzyme.</p>
<p>also there is a completely rational explanation for the evolution of the eye right here Evolution</a> of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>Wikipedia....a website of data created by men who may or may not have any knowledge of the information they submit. </p>
<p>The Bible...a compilation of books put into writing by man but inspired by God.</p>
<p>Like your information about wisdom teeth....I have 5 still in my mouth and I am in my mid 30's. Dentist's swore that they would never grow in, that they are useless...but all 5 have erupted and started growing in nicely. So I will pass on your Wikipedia explanations of life.</p>
<p>Regarding Revelation....whose accepted author was John, a disciple of Jesus Christ. Ain't heard of anyone with legitimate documetation state otherwise.</p>