Should genesis be taken literally?

Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
3,029
Likes
3,520
From the article:
He saved two of every living thing.

That is not true.

You are to take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird of the air, male and female, in order to preserve their offspring on the face of all the earth. For seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living thing I have made.”
GENESIS 7:2-4

That is the first error.

I'm not certain that their interpretation of the flood, as they believe biblical scholars view it, is accurate, either.

And your name isn't mecca.

Js.
 





Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
1,063
Likes
1,414
From the article:
He saved two of every living thing.

That is not true.

You are to take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird of the air, male and female, in order to preserve their offspring on the face of all the earth. For seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living thing I have made.”
GENESIS 7:2-4

That is the first error.

I'm not certain that their interpretation of the flood, as they believe biblical scholars view it, is accurate, either.

And your name isn't mecca.

Js.

Look, I could post mounds of evidence but you won’t believe it. I’ll let Mecca come back and provide her own links and proof, but it won’t matter because you will just ignore it.

Taking the gloves off a little bit, and no offense meant, believing in the creation myth literally or the story of Noah, is literally insanity.
 





Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
1,063
Likes
1,414
How do we know how old the Earth is?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...arth-is/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.96e941ed300f

This source has good info and explains things well.

They will undoubtedly attack radio-carbon dating as is the standard M.O.


Anyway for anyone interested here is a Christian perspective on the flaws of young earth and “creation science” and how it has damaged religion.



https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/36-youngearthflaws.html
 





mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
6,530
Likes
10,855
They will undoubtedly attack radio-carbon dating as is the standard M.O.
Well the Earth was not dated using carbon. Carbon dating isn't used to date old rocks, it's mostly used for plants and animals... and it only works for things as young as 50,000 years. The age of the Earth was determined through a different type of radiometric dating called uranium-lead dating.

http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/07/10/how-do-geologists-use-carbon-dating-to-find-the-age-of-rocks/
https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/radiom.html
 





Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
1,063
Likes
1,414
Well the Earth was not dated using carbon. Carbon dating isn't used to date old rocks, it's mostly used for plants and animals... and it only works for things as young as 50,000 years. The age of the Earth was determined through a different type of radiometric dating called uranium-lead dating.

http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/07/10/how-do-geologists-use-carbon-dating-to-find-the-age-of-rocks/
https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/radiom.html
Well that should be proof we are not the same person lol, but they will attack that form of dating.


Anthropology also disproves a literal interpretation of Genesis, as most literalists place the Garden of Eden, and the origin of our species in the Middle East, when in reality humans come from Africa.

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanit...-early-societies/a/where-did-humans-come-from
 





Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
1,063
Likes
1,414
Dear-science-how-does-soap-make-things-clean?

lol
I dont think you meant to link that. Why dont you summarize, yourself. I can look up articles that "disprove" creationism on my own.
Not how this works.

She provided the proof you asked for, but as I said you will just ignore it.

It doesn’t even take a science background to understand that Genesis ( the OT as a whole) is impossible to be taken literally. It just takes common sense.

Care to address flat earth or geo-centrism, which if taken literally, the Bible endorses but are not true?
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
3,029
Likes
3,520
Well that should be proof we are not the same person lol, but they will attack that form of dating.


Anthropology also disproves a literal interpretation of Genesis, as most literalists place the Garden of Eden, and the origin of our species in the Middle East, when in reality humans come from Africa.

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanit...-early-societies/a/where-did-humans-come-from
You know what is interesting though, and kind of throws a monkey wrench in that theory? The Basques. Think Type-O Negative. Or Rh-Negative.

This is by Robert Sepehr, Anthropologist-- he isn't religious, as far as I can tell. He gets right to it, in the first minute. Fascinating stuff.

 





mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
6,530
Likes
10,855
lol
I dont think you meant to link that. Why dont you summarize, yourself. I can look up articles that "disprove" creationism on my own.
What's so funny? I definitely did mean to link that. You asked for evidence that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old... the article I linked tells you how people found out that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and what they used to prove it. The article was not made to disprove creationism... it was simply made to explain scientific facts and the history behind a discovery. The facts happen to disprove the idea of a young Earth, but it has nothing to do with whether God created the Earth or not.
 





mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
6,530
Likes
10,855
It doesn’t even take a science background to understand that Genesis ( the OT as a whole) is impossible to be taken literally. It just takes common sense.
Yeah, I haven't seen any talking snakes in real life lol.

Not to mention the fact that female humans were not created from a rib and people can't live to 900 years old.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
1,063
Likes
1,414
You know what is interesting though, and kind of throws a monkey wrench in that theory? The Basques. Think Type-O Negative. Or Rh-Negative.

This is by Robert Sepehr, Anthropologist-- he isn't religious, as far as I can tell. He gets right to it, in the first minute. Fascinating stuff.

You mean the quack who thinks there was widespread agricultural farming during the Ice Age? You can do better.
 





Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
1,063
Likes
1,414
What's so funny? I definitely did mean to link that. You asked for evidence that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old... the article I linked tells you how people found out that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and what they used to prove it. The article was not made to disprove creationism... it was simply made to explain scientific facts and the history behind a discovery. The facts happen to disprove the idea of a young Earth, but it has nothing to do with whether God created the Earth or not.
Yes and that’s it, Old Earth or Evolution in no way disproves God, it only disproves a literal interpretation and I don’t understand why fundamentalists are so insecure about this.


Yeah, I haven't seen any talking snakes in real life lol.
Yep.
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
3,029
Likes
3,520
Not how this works.

She provided the proof you asked for, but as I said you will just ignore it.

It doesn’t even take a science background to understand that Genesis ( the OT as a whole) is impossible to be taken literally. It just takes common sense.

Care to address flat earth or geo-centrism, which if taken literally, the Bible endorses but are not true?
Noo... she accidentally linked an article on "How Soap Works."