I’d like to burn some very typical straw men. Hopefully, in the debate over Christianity, these unnecessary issues can be avoided.

Creation  - Neither Genesis nor any of the scriptures demands that the earth and universe is only 6- to 10- thousand years old. The Hebrew word for “day” (yom) could mean long periods of time. The words  “there was morning and there was evening, the first day” could be translated “there was beginning and ending, the first (yom)”.

(BTW, the narrative moves to the surface of the earth in Genesis 1:2. While stars were certainly already in existence, their light was not visible on the surface of the earth until the opaque early atmosphere cleared).

Adam and Eve – While scripture does indicate they were specially created, there are gaps in the biblical genealogies that could place Adam and Eve back 60- to 90-thousand years. This would also predict increasing discovery of a common DNA originating between east Africa and the Mesopotamia.

(BTW, the word for “rib” means “side”. The story of Eve’s creation could mean God created her from Adam for symbolic purposes. I speculate a biopsy, of sorts, from the side, with a few million variations to the DNA producing a female. )

Talking Snakes - A boa constrictor with vocal cords is not in view here. That image comes largely from medieval art. The “serpent” in the garden was intelligent and used for evil. One can only speculate what sort of being it was (perhaps one no longer extant).

The Flood – The fact that a great flood is found in various cultures indicates that it happened. Two questions emerge:  which account is most accurate and whether the flood was global or local.

I’m of the opinion that the flood was regional rather than global for several reasons. First, while the flood was universal in effect, it was only regional in extent due to human’s not having moved much beyond the Mesopotamia at the time. A global flood was unnecessary.

Secondly, language like “under all the heavens”, “all the earth”, etc. are most likely from the perspective of the observer, i.e. a flood from horizon to horizon. “Mountains” could be translated “hills” with rain and water “covering” (or running over) them rather than submerging them.

Thirdly, this would mean there were not polar bears and penguins, etc. on the ark, but only animals indigenous to the region and of special relation to man.

Fourthly, a global flood would have torn the ark to pieces, no matter how well built. And it certainly would not have landed anywhere near its original location.

Fifthly, the scripture itself said a “large wind” was used in the evaporation process. Such a wind would have virtually no effect in a global flood.

Finally, if the flood were only regional why not just have Noah, his family, and whatever animals needed, hike out of the area and be safe? Why a big specifically-built ark? I think because God often operates via symbols teaching important truths or significance, i.e. salvation in Christ or deliverance through troubled waters (trials).

Use of Metaphor – The scriptures use metaphor and other literary devices. One need only utilize common exegetical analysis and context to determine what any author meant as literal or metaphorical (and on a case-by-case basis).

Inerrancy – If there are consequential or factual errors in the Bible  that does not mean Christianity is false. However, I find it remarkable how well the Bible holds up to scrutiny and that there are plausible answers to discrepancies. Personally, I hold to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.  

Hell – is not a place of torture (external) but of torment (internal). There are many descriptions of hell in the scriptures. The “fire” is most likely not the chemical combustion we’re familiar with. It, combined with all the other descriptions, reduces to separation from God and the judgment of God.

This does not make hell more tolerable (that’s not possible). But it does dispel hillbilly theology that has poor souls swatting flames for eternity! Christ depicted conversation taking place “in the flames”. No person could have a conversation while on fire! On our familiar planet, one is in mindless torture if burning.

It is, however, a profound tragedy to be eternally separated from God. It is a “spiritual chaos” one enters when the intact “self” survives the physical body.  There are indications that some kind of body could exist in hell.

Heaven – is a remarkably physical place. It is not ethereal or immaterial. It is a combination of a “new heaven and new earth”. We will live on earth in physical bodies that are “spiritual” which nonetheless have access to one another and continued exploration of the universe without many of the limits of current bodies affected by entropy, etc. Christ’s resurrected body could be touched and he ate food, etc. This describes the redeemed, resurrected body.

This is not to be confused with an intermediary state which is not physical. At death, one goes either into the very presence of God to await the resurrection of the body, or in a state of chaos to await final judgment.

“God will not allow anything to happen in your life that you can’t handle” – False! Scripturally, there are plenty of things that happen that one cannot handle! Devastating things! The accurate teaching is that nothing will happen that God’s grace will not get one through.

“You must become like children”  - Christ said to “humble yourself like a little child”. It does not mean to be naïve, ignorant, gullible, or irrational.

Pascal’s Wager This is not an argument for God nor necessarily addressed to atheists. Pascal used a popular gambling motif to shake the French laity out of spiritual complacency and to at least move them in the direction of God.

Further, the Wager, as it is commonly used, is not allowed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. He said if Christ was not risen, then the jig is up! Christianity is false! He did not say believe it anyway “just in case” or because it provides a positive way of life.

I hope these internal considerations provide food for thought.

Views: 6095

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Actually, I meant like the DNA "argument".  Pacman's statement is just nonsense, but now that you point it out I guess it probably serves the same purpose of seeming to mean something and making the non-believers pause to think.  (Of course, what we are thinking is that the believer is spouting nonsense, but they don't get that.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteriaHi Bill. DNA doesn't need a writer.

Oh noes. Chrome ate my reply. 


Nylonase is a bacteria that went through a frame shift that allowed it to feed on nylon, a man-made product. It's an example of new information being caused by mutation due to a new food source. 


Reverse Transcriptase occurs when an outside virus writes new information into the genetic code of it's host. HIV is an example. So it takes an infection to cause it, and it can place itself anywhere in the DNA strings. We share 14 of these same ERV's with apes. Out of billions of potential locations, we share 14. So the reasonable question becomes, did a deceptive writer write this, or do we share common ancestry with apes? If we were specially created out of the Earth, why do we have this commonality?


The rock analogy doesn't work because it's not biological. By comparison, if I didn't know that reproduction occurred by copulation and thought that it was the stork, I could say that you don't get new rocks by rubbing two rocks together, therefore you don't get new humans by rubbing two humans together. Both arguments are equally valid. If you are proposing a writer of DNA, you need to show the evidence of that writer, and not simply reason that there was a writer. Patterns exist in virtually everything. Not knowing why doesn't point to a creator.    

but do you "really-really" believe?


 anyone remember that bill hicks piece about god burying dinosaurs just to mess with people?


anything that doesn't make sense is god trying to make sure you "really" believe.  him being god, he can't just tell by looking at you.


my sister believes she killed her baby (miscarriage).  she believes that when she started bleeding if only she had believed more (unspecified amount) the child would have been spared.

Very sad about your sister and her child. There are teachers in the "Word of Faith" churches teaching things that would devastate your sister (due to her alleged "lack of faith"). They are wrong.
One of my main issues with Young Earth Creationism is that it amounts to God being a deceiver. Psa. 19 says the "heavens declare the glory of God... and give knowledge (concerning the universe)...". The appearance
I was where you are....trying to make sense of the senseless.   It was probably step one to getting to be an atheist.  Pick apart all of your own assertions and you will find out for yourself that you are just rationalizing.  None of it is true in any context.  They are just fables.
[like] +1
Keep in mind that sword cuts both ways! All of us should reasonably pick apart our assertions. But I fail to see how it is senseless that God exists and has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. It is implausible (senseless) only if one holds to a strict metaphysical naturalism that does not allow the hypothesis. I would like to see more of my atheist friends defend Naturalism as the superior worldview.
Whether or not a view is superior, however that might be quantified, is irrelevant to the issue of whether the view is gained through observation or imagination.  I can imagine seeing Earth from Mars, but that imagined view cannot be argued as more accurate than the pictures sent back by satellites orbiting mars, no matter how much more spectacular my imagined version might be.

Did you get all that from observation or imagination?


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service