Genesis Wrong => Bible Wrong?

[Nickatwarwick]

Hi,

This has come up in other threads, so I thought I'd devote a new discussion to it.

What ramifications does not believing in Genesis have on the rest of the Bible, and more importantly, Christianity?

If I may, I'd like to ask Omega or Alpha, who I know have strong and well thought out opinions on the subject, to lay out simply their logic and reasoning for believing verbatim in Genesis. And then when I've got time I'll voice my own thoughts [I've got a massive project due in on Thursday], and hopefully others theirs. Hope you'll agree to do so.

Thanks

Nick

[Omega]

Well it's almost lunchtime for me, but for a starter, don't you think that a person or better yet a so-called believer who has a hard time taking the genesis account literally have a hard time taking the rest of the Bible and ITS PROMISES literally?

God Bless, be back soon!

[Nickatwarwick]

I'm of almost the opposite opinion. I think the reason a lot of people don't get onto thinking and studying the majority of the Bible seriously is because the 1st page of it is so "controversial", should we say, and they're immediately put off.

Much better to be certain about the bit that matters and sceptical about the beginning than to shove the whole lot onto the bookshelf to gather dust.

God Bless

Nick

[Omega]

Honestly, i'm not quite sure, thats just my personal opinion.
Let's see what others have to say.

God Bless!

[Nickatwarwick]

Could Genesis have been written any other way?

What would the Israelites have said a bloke wondering in from the desert pontificating the following:

"Yes, God has made it plain to me. The earth is a tiny dot in the middle of an unimaginably vast universe, which originally boiled down to a singularity of infinite density. Matter then was so hot even the atoms decomposed, and matter anti-matter annihilation flashed energy across the cosmos. Thousands of millions of years later, the earth was created, and then man came along. after the dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals had died out, etc...."

Well, perhaps some of them would have looked up from their animal hide tents, looking slightly bemused. The rest would probably have thrown rocks at him and called him a nutter.

Genesis can't provide successfully for both the modern world and back then. It's simply couldn't keep both satisfied.

But does this matter?

In my opinion Genesis still answers all the important and relevent questions we might have about the origin of the universe and humanity.

Did God start it? Yes
Is there a purpose to it? Yes
Did God give humans a soul? Yes
Did humans turn from him to sin? Yes

etc..

Just because I'm not convinced It's not 100% true has little to no effect on my belief. God wanted it written as it is. All scripture is God Breathed, and is USEFUL [excuse my paraphrasing]

If Genesis had been written in such a way as to agree with scientific theory more readily, would my religion and belief be different?

Not a bit.


Nick

[Omega]

If Genesis had been written in such a way as to agree with scientific theory more readily, would my religion and belief be different?

Not a bit.

To you maybe not, to others maybe!

God Bless!

[Nickatwarwick]

OK,

Imagine replacing a couple of the verses in Genesis with some more "modern" equivalents.

Say it spells out the physics behind the Big Bang.
Say it says the earth is an exact figure of years old, perhaps 200 million.
Say it says humans evolved and at an exact point in time God chose to reveal himself to one of these "ape-men" and give them souls.

Now go on and read the rest of the bible. Not much has changed. Most of the links to Genesis would still work out. Jesus still came to die for our sins and save us.

Now try messing around with Matthew or John. Bad, nasty things happen. Things I'm not willing to type.

Are you willing to concede a refusal to accept Genesis verbatim whilst following the important bits is a reasonable and acceptable form of faith, albeit one you differ from?



God Bless

Nick

[Omega]

OKIE DOKIE!

[Nickatwarwick]

Crikey!
Agreement? On this forum?

Surely nothing on earth could perform such a task?

[Omega]

Crikey!
Agreement? On this forum?

Surely nothing on earth could perform such a task?

Relax my friend!
Your never going to come to agreements all the time nick! especially when if you go to google and type in bible debate and this website is one of the leading sites.

We are all here to learn from each other, well one day, we will all be in agreement when we fellowship in heaven don't you think so my brother?
Amen!

BTW, what does crikey mean?

God Bless!

[Nickatwarwick]

Crikey:

As in:

"Crikey, these crazed Yanks will be telling us how to spell colour next"

See also "Cripes, Zounds, Gosh" etc.

Hope this helps.


Nick

[Alpha]

Hi,

This has come up in other threads, so I thought I'd devote a new discussion to it.

What ramifications does not believing in Genesis have on the rest of the Bible, and more importantly, Christianity?

If I may, I'd like to ask Omega or Alpha, who I know have strong and well thought out opinions on the subject, to lay out simply their logic and reasoning for believing verbatim in Genesis. And then when I've got time I'll voice my own thoughts [I've got a massive project due in on Thursday], and hopefully others theirs. Hope you'll agree to do so.

Thanks

Nick

You know my stance on the issue. I don't think believing that Genesis is literal or not has anything to do with salvation, because salvation is just putting your trust in Christ and following Him. But according to our Lord, the accounts in Genesis are true. Whatever our Lord says is true, then we shouldn't even debate over.

[DMP]

Hi Nick. Get those studies done. I'm watching.

Now, no one asked me to jump in. So ignore me if you wish. I understand. I'm not answering your request as you asked Alpha and Omega.
But leaving questions for you to study about as you walk the path of science and its vast mysteries to be known.

Now I absoulutely love to hear you, and Twohumble, give those scientific explanations. It's valuable to me. So you go on searching and giving us your findings.

The word of the Lord is true and without error. And Genesis is the seedbook to the entire Salvation story or theory...

I think the Universe and the Earth (creation and all that is in it) gives to us an account of the One God and the process He used for saving the world (us).
The scientific terminology is up to those of you who are willing, that God will use. Just keep yourself available. His word is true. You will find what you need as he reveals.

Your... salvation Begins...salvation Proceeds...salvation reaches its End.

Genesis is the book of seeds. It deals with beginings. It holds tremendous secrets and mysteries in its proceedural operations. It brings to us its conclusion (end).

As you well know:

Laws (Principles) never change. They can't change. Laws are predictable. Laws bring the same results. When a Law is discovered, understood and put to the test, it will ALWAYS bring the same results. It cannot lie. You can trust it 100% of the time.

When you discover beginnings and the Law or laws that are in place for it, the formula will not only give you the place to begin, but will always give you its expected end. You never have to worry or live in anxiety over whether the formula will bring the result desired or not. You KNOW it ALWAYS delivers the expected and predicted end.

The Beginning of Salvation is in Genesis.
The Laws and the formulas are in Genesis.
When discovered and understood (observed) and put in operatioin... It doesn't matter how many times that the process is repeated, it will always bring to pass the expected conclusion.

Salvation is taught in Genesis.
Salvation is taught in the cosmos.
Salvations is taught in the earth.
Salvation is taught in man.

You look Nick, until you find the principle (law and formulas) in Physics or Chemistry or Astronomy or Nature. When you find it, the Scriptures unfold for you. You will discover the scientific explanations of the beginning of Salvation in Jesus the Christ; the process at work in Jesus the Christ at Calvary; and the expected end in the ressurection of the same.

Every step and detail of the way will have a formula (laws) that governs the process that brings the expected end that was promisede by God.

Look in your world to find the universal law or laws that agreed in Jesus the Christ that brought and will bring, always, the expected end. This Law or Principle and formula when applied will give predetermined conclusions.

Question: (use this to give yourself purpose and focus for study in your chosen field). What was this law? Why would it not work for us? Where would it work if it could work? And why does it work now for us if it does? What are the formulas (requirements)? What is it telling us to do? What is the result?

Hints:

The Bible says:

From KJV Romans 8
(1) There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
(2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
(3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
(4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Lot of good law stuff in Romans...

Paul was saying that there was a law, already in existence, that was supposed to work. It was to always bring the predicted end. But it didn't it wasn't working. Paul said : the formula wasn't weak. The flesh was weak.

But God commissioned His Son to come in flesh (even in the likeness of sinful flesh) and the formula worked.

And now that it brought the expected end, it can be followed by us and the same law that would not work before, willwork now.

Paul says again: in Galations 3:19-24 or so...

...why serve the law? It was added(when?)(addition and emphasis mine)...till the seed come...

...faith was sealed away from us. Locked up. And the law kept us under it. (vs. 23 paraphrased by me). We could not participate with it. It wouldn't work.

vs.24 Wherefore, the law was only (addition mine) our schoolmaster (to study and follow its leading) (additions mine)...(now here is the reason you study the Law and follow it) (addition mine)...to bring us to Christ (emphasis mine)...that we might be justifiied by faith (that was shut away from us) addition mine).

All this is taught in Genesis and the Creation that you are studying that brings Salvation. Find it. Put it to the test. It works every time.

What must be done to be saved?
What must I do to be saved?
And what are the laws and formulas that are in place between the two that will bring the predictable END?
Do the principles found agee with scripture?

Find its logic and reasoning and its truth.

Jesus said: John 3:9,10,12 KJV

(9) Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
(10) Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
(12) If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Good Luck (I've got to go to Bible study)

DMP

[csdragon]

You know my stance on the issue. I don't think believing that Genesis is literal or not has anything to do with salvation, because salvation is just putting your trust in Christ and following Him. But according to our Lord, the accounts in Genesis are true. Whatever our Lord says is true, then we shouldn't even debate over.

Can you tell me where Jesus verifies that all of the accounts of Genesis are true, other than Mark 10:6, which doesn't verify anything.

Was keeping Genesis in the Bible a major dispute among the council during the reformation?

[Alpha]

Can you tell me where Jesus verifies that all of the accounts of Genesis are true, other than Mark 10:6, which doesn't verify anything.

Mark 10:6 does verify the creation account in Genesis. but if you want a more specific example, check out Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51, where Christ refers to the death of Abel, who was the second born to Adam and Eve.

To take the creation account to not be literal is to take the Holy Bible out of context and bringing something into scripture rather than taking out (or interpretating) what scripture intends.

[csdragon]

Can you tell me where Jesus verifies that all of the accounts of Genesis are true, other than Mark 10:6, which doesn't verify anything.

Mark 10:6 does verify the creation account in Genesis. but if you want a more specific example, check out Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51, where Christ refers to the death of Abel, who was the second born to Adam and Eve.

To take the creation account to not be literal is to take the Holy Bible out of context and bringing something into scripture rather than taking out (or interpretating) what scripture intends.

Notice, that I said "all of the accounts". Where does he mention the literal six days of creation? It is obvious that there were "Man and woman" in the beginning, but when?

Mark 10:6 only seems to verify that in the beginning there was Man and Woman (doesn't indicate Adam and Eve). It does not indicate that everything in Genesis should be taken literally. It does not eliminate the possibility of evolution. It doesn't eliminate the possibility that God gave Moses a non-scientific approach to the creation account. It does not eliminate the possibility that primitive man did not walk the Earth as well.

Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51 are part of the six/seven woes that he is directing at the Phairsees. He is not giving an account of the Creation story. He is reminding them of their hypocrisy. I don't see how this explains creation(literal) or verifies it. I do not doubt that Adam, Eve, and Abel existed, but I do doubt that they were they only "humans" walking the Earth at that time in history. They were the only humans with a soul or that had a covenant with God. Where did the wives Adam and Eves sons come from? Some of them just seem to pop up from other lands.

To understand Genesis as infallably scientific, is to not understand the meaning of the words that Jesus spoke. He never once discounted the possibilities of scientific discoveries.

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

If you continue to follow doctrine as specified by men, you will be entering the wide gate. If you follow the true word of Jesus you will find truth. Jesus quotes scripture from the Old Testiment, but never classifies it all as infallalable. When he says that you do not hear the word of my Father, he was referring to the words that he actually spoke. The only "man" in the NT Bible that claims all scripture is infallable or "God-breathed" is Paul.

I feel that some Christians that take this state of mind, are using the Bible as their idol. They do not understand it as a guide for living their lives. To understand what Jesus has done for us, does not require that we believe in a literal six day creation account, that has been imbedded in the minds of many by "men". If parts of the Bible are in error, then it would make more sense, since men wrote it. Men that did not have the complete understanding of the world. A few hundred years ago, religious men said the world was flat. That was obviously disproven, and Jesus never claimed to be flat, just like he doesn't claim the Bible to be perfect. He only tells us that his true word is the truth, and the truth will set you free. I do not find my faith in Jesus' word failing, just because I don't believe the Bible as being inerrant.

[Omega]

Yawn...Good morning everyone!

I feel that some Christians that take this state of mind, are using the Bible as their idol. They do not understand it as a guide for living their lives. To understand what Jesus has done for us, does not require that we believe in a literal six day creation account, that has been imbedded in the minds of many by "men". If parts of the Bible are in error, then it would make more sense, since men wrote it. Men that did not have the complete understanding of the world. A few hundred years ago, religious men said the world was flat. That was obviously disproven, and Jesus never claimed to be flat, just like he doesn't claim the Bible to be perfect. He only tells us that his true word is the truth, and the truth will set you free. I do not find my faith in Jesus' word failing, just because I don't believe the Bible as being inerrant.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:16,17

God Bless!

[csdragon]

Delete this message please.

[Omega]

Like I said, it was only written by Paul (2 Tim 3:16 was the verse I was referring to), not Jesus. Paul was a man whether he had guidance from the spirit or not, he still had his own agenda. Every "man" has their own agenda. Jesus had only the agenda of God's will. Be sure not to follow Paul instead of Jesus. Paul is not your savior, and Paul did not die on a cross for you.

??? I never said Paul was my saviour, Jesus is my saviour, do you understand this? There seems to be misunderstanding when my repsonse was posted.

I have been in Christianity forover 23 years, so me follolwing Paul instead of Jesus, first of all you must understand that paul was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, your point however, can't seem tofigure out where you came up with the assumption or advice towards me not to follow Paul, do you not follow the Bible? Is not Pauls words part of the Bible?

I quoted a verse 2 Timothy 3:16 and you said the above, now if i were to quote the same words verbatim what you have said, what is the impact?

Simple, in conclusion, take heed and listen to the instruction of the Holy Spirit spoken by the men and women who were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, and Worship God. The Bible is for knowledge and instruction, obey it, very simple in my response to you, understand?

Very interesting a quote from bible.com

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6 KJV)

God Bless!

[Omega]

Furthermore my friend, try and stick with the topic, topic shifting here is not to friendly with moderators,IF{Please do not single out me} .

Have a splendid day!

[DMP]

Notice, that I said "all of the accounts". Where does he mention the great flood? Where does he mention the literal six days of creation? It is obvious that there were "Man and woman" in the beginning, but when?

He doesn't mention you either but you're here.

It does not indicate that everything in Genesis should be taken literally. It does not eliminate the possibility of evolution. It doesn't eliminate the possibility that God gave Moses a non-scientific approach to the creation account.

You're right on this one. Moses was hid in the cleft of the rock when God passed before him. Moses didn't have a telescope or microscope. He only had a front row seat watching creation with his his own eyes.

It does not eliminate the possibility that primitive man did not walk the Earth as well.

Oh, they still live in San Francisco.

I do not doubt that Adam, Eve, and Abel existed, but I do doubt that they were they only "humans" walking the Earth at that time in history. They were the only humans with a soul or that had a covenant with God. Where did the wives Adam and Eves sons come from? Some of them just seem to pop up from other lands.

Now, your Mom or Dad should have told you about reproduction.

To understand Genesis as infallably scientific, is to not understand the meaning of the words that Jesus spoke. He never once discounted the possibilities of scientific discoveries

That is a problem creators have. They seem to forget to discover what they create.

The only "man" in the NT Bible that claims all scripture is infallable or "God-breathed" is Paul.

Right. And what does he know anyway. He went around killing people.

I feel that some Christians that take this state of mind, are using the Bible as their idol

True. True. Many know the written scriptures but do not know the author. That's why THEY have to tell YOU what it says. Because they have only THEIR mind in them. We're supposed to have His mind in us. And that takes a process. But what do I know. I'm just an ex- coccain addict that Jesus freed, doing something stupid like preaching. Can you imagine?

feel that some Christians that take this state of mind, are using the Bible as their idol. They do not understand it as a guide for living their lives. To understand what Jesus has done for us, does not require that we believe in a literal six day creation account

True again. But the creation will give me an intricate detailed explanation of the process that was required of my Father to get me whom I hated because I did not know Him. But what do I know.

If parts of the Bible are in error, then it would make more sense, since men wrote it.

You don't know how true that is. I tell my congregation all the time, when preaching, that if they could understand my errors it would make more sense.

Men that did not have the complete understanding of the world. A few hundred years ago, religious men said the world was flat. That was obviously disproven,

That was the problem. They were religious. It was probably man-breathed and that always brings bad breath.

and Jesus never claimed to be flat, just like he doesn't claim the Bible to be perfect. He only tells us that his true word is the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Truth again sir. I have no Idea what was in His mind when He said "Low, I come in the volume of the book".

Must have been distracted. Oh, I know what it might have been..................................................................................................................................................................................CALVARY. You were on His mind.


Listen csdragon. I was asked questions one day by those who only wanted to embarass me and didn't have a good attitude about searching the depths of Jesus. People still don't understand...Who is this Jesus? They still don't know what to do with Him? Even in this room.

You sound like me in that you are a glutton for punishment when it comes to detail. I want the details. How did you do it Lord? Why did you do it Lord? What was the process? What was you thinking? What did you mean here in when you said?

You keep asking csdragon, searching for answers. Above all fast and pray and search Him for answers who is the answer. Let Him guide you to the people and place He desires for you to be for learning.

Bless you BIG

DMP

[Omega]

The only "man" in the NT Bible that claims all scripture is infallable or "God-breathed" is Paul.
Right. And what does he know anyway. He went around killing people.

How's about Spiritual knowledge from the Holy Ghost!
A former murderer and persecutor of Christians, TRANSFORMED by the renewing of the mind & rebirth of spirit, just like you my friend!

God Bless!

[Omega]

Quote:
It does not eliminate the possibility that primitive man did not walk the Earth as well.
Oh, they still live in San Francisco.

Actually I live nearby S.F, different city, but close by. I have many christian friends out there who put people on this forum to shame. I was there yesterday shopping for groceries ata popluar market and during the day passed by a bar an could not help notice that men and women were having a ball drinking and conversing, and a verse came to mind which is:

But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Matthew 24:37-39

God Bless!

[csdragon]

I quoted a verse 2 Timothy 3:16 and you said the above, now if i were to quote the same words verbatim what you have said, what is the impact?

Please forgive me Omega, I typed that message late last night and didn't realize that you had highlighted the "For instruction" part. I will pay more attention next time. My previous message stated something about Paul being the only person in the NT to say that the Bible was the infallable word of God, and I thought you were then quoting the exact verse that I was referring to 2 Tim 3:16.

??? I never said Paul was my saviour, Jesus is my saviour, do you understand this? There seems to be misunderstanding when my repsonse was posted.

I have been in Christianity forover 23 years, so me follolwing Paul instead of Jesus, first of all you must understand that paul was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, your point however, can't seem tofigure out where you came up with the assumption or advice towards me not to follow Paul, do you not follow the Bible? Is not Pauls words part of the Bible?

Again, I'm sorry. I meant for the statement to be general and not directed at you alone. I respect the fact that you have been in Christianity for a long period of time, and I was not accusing you of following Paul. I do not doubt your loyalty to Jesus. Thing is, I see people that get stuck on words written by Paul, and ignore those that were spoken by Jesus.

As far as following the Bible. I do. The inerrancy of the Bible is still something that I am finding hard to completely believe, as it was written by men, translated hundreds of times, and includes books that were not unanimously voted in by a council 400 years ago. I follow the gospels as the truth, because they are the words of Jesus. I follow works Paul has written as words of wisdom that were inspired to some degree by the holy spirit. But, I am personally having a struggle understanding why Paul's writings contradict the words of Jesus so often. This could be why I am expressing my "opinions" here, but I feel the Holy spirit is bringing this awareness to me, for some reason. If nothing else, I will consider His word the authority, and consider anything that Paul says as secondary.

I'm afraid that many Christians today have become brainwashed by ideas and doctrines and traditions that came from men and not from God. So, instead of becoming closer to Jesus, they are falling into some sort of trap layed out by the enemy.

Furthermore my friend, try and stick with the topic, topic shifting here is not to friendly with moderators,IF{Please do not single out me} .

Have a splendid day!

I wasn't trying to get off the topic. I was only replying to the message. I also wasn't trying to single you out. I did not mean to upset you.

Is Jesus truly in your heart when you leave angry responses to others? I made some rather quick statements without consideration to their effect, and I apologize, but I do not believe it was necessary to use your recent comments.

May you walk in peace brother.

[Nickatwarwick]

csdragon, you're not alone in your scepticism. Nice to know there are other people with doubts out there!

Now, to continue the debate, I'd like to discuss the approach people take when their views of the Bible are challenged.

Do you take stock, re-read your Bible and see if you can shift your opinion on the meanings of the words without putting your fundamental beliefs out of joint?

Or do you take stock, re-read your Bible and then spend hours coming up with an explanation which keeps your opinions the way they were, even if that explanation involves putting pens of little baby dinosaurs onto a boat made from gopher wood. [where do gophers come into it? I've always wondered.]

God Bless,

Nick

[Nickatwarwick]

Also, I'd like to have a really good study of the 2 Timothy verse.
Moderators, do you want to move this to another thread, or keep it here?


2 Timothy, Chapter 3, Vs 15-17

(15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


2 things stike me personally. The first is that I can still read the above to be true, yet still believe some of the Bible is non-literal.

The second is the word profitable. I can't get over how strange a choice it is. What about essential, required, necessary, or perfect?

I just think Paul could easily have been more clear cut if he wanted to say the Bible was perfect in every way.

Opinions? I'd also be really greatful if someone could offer insight into the original Greek wording, it's something I have very little knowledge of and am always thankful to learn about.

God Bless

Nick

[Omega]

To csdragon:No worries, i must of misunderstood you, my apologies to you my friend!

And to Nickatwarwick:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16

Profitable:Basically means that uit is benefical towards you.
doctrine:from 1320didaskalia did-as-kal-ee'-ah from ; instruction (the function or the information):--doctrine, learning, teaching.
reproof:from1650 elegchos el'-eng-khos from 1651; proof, conviction:--evidence, reproof.
correction:from 1882 epanorthosis ep-an-or'-tho-sis from a compound of 1909 and 461; a straightening up again, i.e. (figuratively) rectification (reformation):-- correction.

Basically what the Author Paul is trying to address to Timothy and the rest of its readers are That is is an inspiration from God Himself{Gr. theopneustos, liter., "God Breathed"} which describes the uniqueness of scripture, it is not only written by men filled with the Holy Spirit but it is authored by God Himself.

• For doctrine basically means to tell someonewhat to believe.
• For reproof basically means to tell one what is wrong.
• For correction basically means to tell one how ti lcorrect wrong.
• For instruction ins righteousness means to tell one how we should live.

So the Bible is written by spirit filled men, authored by God, and is a valuable book whereby we learn what is wrong, how to live, to correct wrong{morally wrong i suppose} and to tell others what they should believe.

I hope i don't get another Crikey! response.

Take care and God Bless!

[Nickatwarwick]

Egad!

Another top post with the truth in it! Thanks again Omega. I'm always interested in the original language of scripture. Where did you lot learn about it?

Thanks,

Nick

[Alpha]

But, I am personally having a struggle understanding why Paul's writings contradict the words of Jesus so often.

If this was ture, then you skepticism would be valid. Unfortunately, your statement is a wrong one, because Paul does not contradict the teachings of Christ. And you do not have to worry about the innerrancy of scripture. All the evidence the Holy Bible has to support it shows its innerrancy. (Scratched out letters and faded words in old manuscripts--things of that nature--have nothing to do with inerrancy. Inerrancy has to deal with the true interpretation of scripture and what it generally teaches).

I do not doubt that Adam, Eve, and Abel existed, but I do doubt that they were they only "humans" walking the Earth at that time in history. They were the only humans with a soul or that had a covenant with God. Where did the wives Adam and Eves sons come from? Some of them just seem to pop up from other lands.

To understand Genesis as infallably scientific, is to not understand the meaning of the words that Jesus spoke. He never once discounted the possibilities of scientific discoveries.

Has it ever occured to you that the sons of Adam and Eve married the daughters of Adam and Eve? God condemned incest when man started to grow in large number, not at the beginning of creation. But is it true that God created Adam and Eve first, then other humans? I don't know. The Holy Bible does not mention that, but it is not out of the realm of the possibility. The thing is, whatever Genesis says happened, that's what happened. There might have been other stuff that happened which Genesis does not mention and has nothing to do with our salvation, but whatever Genesis says happened, it happened. Why do I say this? Because the Holy Bible time and time again shows that it is Divine rather than human in origin. And that's the point of this whole topic. If Genesis is wrong, then the Bible is no longer Divine because in many other parts in the Bible, it makes a referance to the accounts in Genesis. And if those accounts are wrong, the books who make reference to those accounts are wrong. But fortunately, the Holy Bible is inerrant.

[Nickatwarwick]

You're 100% right in your last statement of your first paragraph in your previous post Alpha. It's all well and good to debate and study the little confusing bits of the Bible, let's just all try and remember it all boils down to one thing. Jesus and his eternal love for us.

I'm gonna go and start a new thread explicitly on Paul and the problems some [including me] have with his writings. I'd be greatful csdragon, if you could voice your issues on Paul there so I can have a good look at them. Cheers.


God Bless

Nick

[DMP]

I would just like to add to what Alpha has just eloquently said. Adam and Eve were the first humans to begin the human race. If God had created other humans they would have been without sin like Adam and Eve first were. But all have sinned, the Bible says, and we trace this to Adam, meaning no others were invloved seperate from Him in the dispersing of sin to us.
For the Bible says that Jesus was the Last Adam. The first Adam brought sin on the entire human race by birth. Adam #1 is the origin of our sin. He's the father of our sin. Thus the everlasting father of sinners. The last Adam (Jesus) came to deliver us of our sins, thus free us from Adam. Jesus becomes ,subsequently, as the scriptures prophesy in Isaiah 9:6, the everlasting father (of the new or born again race of Jesus, the righteous).

The destructive nature of incest was not immedeiately felt in the kingdom of humanity. It could later, to man's possible extinction. God could not allow this. To fulfill His promise in Genesis to deliver man he would introduce rules for relationships and marriage so as to secure His place in time for His coming. Other reasons as well. This is one.

DMP

[Omega]

Egad!

Another top post with the truth in it! Thanks again Omega. I'm always interested in the original language of scripture. Where did you lot learn about it?

Thanks,

Nick

Phew!

I thought i was going to get a crikey!

God Bless Nick!

[Nickatwarwick]

Hi, here's a list of NT references to Adam, originally posted by Omega I think.

# Luke 3:38 - Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
# Romans 5:14 - Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
# 1 Corinthians 15:22 - For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
# 1 Corinthians 15:45 - And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
# 1 Timothy 2:13 - For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
# 1 Timothy 2:14 - And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1st one says Adam was the first human, created by God. It doesn't say how he was made, just that God put his humanity into existence.

The 2nd says Adam was the first human to introduce death because of sin. We can all agree that the 1st human probably was the 1st to sin against God, and hence face spiritual death. But does this death mean he was the first creature to die physically?

3rd one: Following Adam people all die, spiritually and physically. Nothing against a non-literal Genesis here.

4th: Man was made a living soul, [the first one ever?]. Everyone must surely agree that along with the first human, be he zapped into existence or a biological evolution, came the first soul.

5th: Man was made/given a soul before a woman. Fair enough. Might bother Emily Davidson, but not me.

6th: Women decieve men. Shocking. Still nothing to sway me away from "talking monkey syndrome" here.

Basically, I'm keen for someone to show me a NT verse which says Genesis is exactly correct. I'd particularly like summat about Noah/Tower of Babel, as these are some of the parts of Genesis I think have got both elements of fact and fiction within them.

Any one care to oblige? As always, I'm grateful for your answers to my nagging questions,

God Bless,

Nick

[Omega]

Here we go!

Basically, I'm keen for someone to show me a NT verse which says Genesis is exactly correct. I'd particularly like summat about Noah/Tower of Babel, as these are some of the parts of Genesis I think have got both elements of fact and fiction within them.
Any one care to oblige? As always, I'm grateful for your answers to my nagging questions,

Well Nick, if you take a look at the scripture posted by you from the NEW TESTAMENT OF LUKE, it says that Enos was the son of Seth, which coincides correctly with OLD TESTAMENT scripture which also proves that to be a fact!

# Luke 3:38 - Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. NT

Genesis 4:26 - And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. OT

Now i do not believe that God would mingle fact and fiction especially when NT authors substantiate OT scriptures as fact, don't you think so my friend?

God Bless!

[Nickatwarwick]

I certainly hope so Omega, I really do. I just really struggle with scripture that goes against hard scientific fact. Science is objective, it has no aim other than to explain nature as best possible.

It's times like this when I wish God had written Genesis with just us in mind, and didn't have to cater for 4 thousand years of progressing mankind. I really am struggling to balance my views, and value your input immensely.

I'm gonna get some reading done, and pray about it. Thanks again, and God Bless

Nick

[Nickatwarwick]

Don't you just love/hate it when God slaps you in the face with scripture?


Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men... Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Well there we go. Enough said. Time to go and read Genesis in a rather different light.


He never makes it easy, does he?

Nick

[Omega]

Don't you just love/hate it when God slaps you in the face with scripture?


Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men... Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Well there we go. Enough said. Time to go and read Genesis in a rather different light.


He never makes it easy, does he?

Nick

The Lord told me to tell you that He loves you Nick! And that nothing is impossible with Him.

God Bless!

[Alpha]

He never makes it easy, does he?

Nope!

Mark 12:30>And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

[Chrysoprasus]

Hi,

This has come up in other threads, so I thought I'd devote a new discussion to it.

What ramifications does not believing in Genesis have on the rest of the Bible, and more importantly, Christianity?

If I may, I'd like to ask Omega or Alpha, who I know have strong and well thought out opinions on the subject, to lay out simply their logic and reasoning for believing verbatim in Genesis. And then when I've got time I'll voice my own thoughts [I've got a massive project due in on Thursday], and hopefully others theirs. Hope you'll agree to do so.

Thanks

Nick

Nick, I'm quite sure you mean to ask if not believing in the literal 7 day creation theory has ramifications for Christianity.
There ARE Christians who believe in Genesis but at the same time do not believe in a literal 7 day creation theory, or they believe in it but also believe it was a recreation, etc..
I believe it may have somewhat of an impact on Christianity, but right now I do not consider that impact signifigant. It will cause some who cannot reconcile science and the bible to reconsider the truth of the bible, although it may also cause some to turn away from it.
Chrys

[spunky]

being the friend of a fundamental extremist I know that he would say that creation being proved wrong is very significant because if creation is wrong then God is fallible if god is fallible He is not perfect and therefore not God.

Personally I think this is crap and as has been said Christ is the centre of Christianity... besides both creation and evolution agree on the order of occurance, then a bunch of science got in the way and widened the gap...

[Alpha]

then a bunch of science got in the way and widened the gap...

A bunch of science fiction.

[IAMFREE]

OK,

Imagine replacing a couple of the verses in Genesis with some more "modern" equivalents.

Say it spells out the physics behind the Big Bang.
Say it says the earth is an exact figure of years old, perhaps 200 million.
Say it says humans evolved and at an exact point in time God chose to reveal himself to one of these "ape-men" and give them souls.

Now go on and read the rest of the bible. Not much has changed. Most of the links to Genesis would still work out. Jesus still came to die for our sins and save us.

Now try messing around with Matthew or John. Bad, nasty things happen. Things I'm not willing to type.

Are you willing to concede a refusal to accept Genesis verbatim whilst following the important bits is a reasonable and acceptable form of faith, albeit one you differ from?



God Bless

Nick

WHERE IN GENESIS DOES IT SAY THERE WAS A BIG BANG OR EVEN THAT THE DINO'S DIED BEFOR MAN WAS MADE?

[Jovaro]

Hey, I know the answer to your first question!

From KJV Genesis 1
(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It doesn't say how he did that, so it might have been with a big bang.

[IAMFREE]

Hey, I know the answer to your first question!

From KJV Genesis 1
(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It doesn't say how he did that, so it might have been with a big bang.

THIS IS THE OPENING STATMENT, THE OVERVIEW FALLOWS THROUGH GENESIS 1 AND 2

[twohumble]

Hey, I know the answer to your first question!

From KJV Genesis 1
(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It doesn't say how he did that, so it might have been with a big bang.

THIS IS THE OPENING STATMENT, THE OVERVIEW FALLOWS THROUGH GENESIS 1 AND 2

Hey there "IAMFREE"
Welcome to the forum.
Yes, it does flow through Gen 1-2. Your point? There is no indication in these following verses that it is NOT a Big Bang. In fact there is good reason to believe that the Bang is exactly what is refered to.
Thanks for joining in.

[IAMFREE]

Hey, I know the answer to your first question!

From KJV Genesis 1
(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It doesn't say how he did that, so it might have been with a big bang.

THIS IS THE OPENING STATMENT, THE OVERVIEW FALLOWS THROUGH GENESIS 1 AND 2

Hey there "IAMFREE"
Welcome to the forum.
Yes, it does flow through Gen 1-2. Your point? There is no indication in these following verses that it is NOT a Big Bang. In fact there is good reason to believe that the Bang is exactly what is refered to.
Thanks for joining in.

WOW, SO WHERE IS THAT GOOD REASON?

[Jovaro]

Did you ever notice the button on your keyboard saying "CapsLock"?
Perhaps you could hit it and use the Shift button to make capitals at the beginning of a sentence and for names?

Looks much better I think.

[IAMFREE]

Sure will, thank you.

[Aineo]

WHERE IN GENESIS DOES IT SAY THERE WAS A BIG BANG OR EVEN THAT THE DINO'S DIED BEFOR MAN WAS MADE?

The Big Bang in Genesis:

Genesis 1:3
3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. NAS

[IAMFREE]

Yes, Genesis 3. Let there be light, not disruption but light. Was this light the sun?

[Aineo]

:D Yes, Genesis 3. Let there be light, not disruption but light. Was this light the sun?

No, the sun and the moon were created:

Gen 1:14-19

14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth ";and it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. NAS

The Big Bang has been discussed. When God said let there be light the universe was flooded with energy in the form of photons. Photons are light.

[IAMFREE]

:D Yes, Genesis 3. Let there be light, not disruption but light. Was this light the sun?

No, the sun and the moon were created:

Gen 1:14-19

14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth ";and it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. NAS

The Big Bang has been discussed. When God said let there be light the universe was flooded with energy in the form of photons. Photons are light.

So what you are saying is that God is radiated?

[Aineo]

So what you are saying is that God is radiated?

I am saying if you are going to make a statement about Scripture, first get it right. I am saying if you are going to discuss science get it right.

Real science does not contradict Scripture and Scripture does not contradict real science.

[IAMFREE]

Then by all means do not misdirect the intent of the scripture. For science does not in anyway have the ability interperate the power of God. The scripture that you quoted was Gen 1:14-19, which was the description of events of the fourth day. I would like to know from where the light was eminating from on the first day Gen 1:3-5.

[Aineo]

"I am the light of the word". The Bible states that God created light on the first day and the sun and moon on the 4th day. What God has not told us in Genesis is where the light came from on the first day.

I think you would benefit from a Biblical word study of the word "knowledge".

[twohumble]

First let me say that Aineo is absolutely correct in saying that scripture and science NEVER contradict each other. God is trustworthy, and never deceptive. He would NEVER go against His nature. His Creation speaks of Him, as does His Holy Word in Scripture. Since He is the Author of both, they are inerrant and true.

Those who imply "the appearance of age" dont' realize how they are contradicting Gods nature, and calling Him deceptive! I am shocked daily by those who, in an effort to uphold scripture, deny Gods character, and His very scripture, that tells us that His creation speaks of Him, and reveals Him to us.

[Nickatwarwick]

I'll second that one twohumble!

IAMFREE, if you've got any other questions along these lines, it might be helpful for you to take a look at www.reasons.org, a site which I've found really useful for a numbers of issues I had. You're also very welcome to raise them here, [just realise we've sometimes gone over these things before, and if you know what we're going to say in reply to your statements there's not much point in you bothering].

Anyways, God Bless all you lot,

See you about

Nick

[tuppence]

A few points here, if I may

1. Chrys, to some people the seven day first week is extraordinarily important. They reason that if the Bible could not get the beginning right, why trust it for anything else; or, at the least, where does one begin trusting it?

2. spunky, creation and evolution do NOT agree on the order of occurance at all! Creation has fruiting plants before any animals, for instance. It has birds before land life. In fact, it has the sun and the moon after the appearance of land on earth! You can't get a lot more different!

3. the "Big Bang" was a derogatory term used for the idea that the universe had expanded. Properly, it should perhaps have been called the Big Expansion, for nothing went 'bang'! What is interesting, however, is that the concept of a big expansion is exactly what the Bible presents. Twelve times God states that He stretched out the heavens. Ten of those times are in the past completed tense. It happened and was finished; it is not still expanding.

4. Nick, there is more physics in Genesis 1 than you might suppose!
In the beginning -- time
God created -- 'bara' something from nothing
the heavens -- space
and the earth. -- matter

We live in a time/space/mass continuum. This is basic physics!

In Genesis 1:2, we learn that the earth had a cold start, not a hot one, for "the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Not the clouds, not the vapors, but the liquid waters.

Physics.

"Let there be light" is the beginning of atomic processes. Physics.

5. IAMFREE (love your handle there!), the statements that God stretched the heavens are not in Genesis, but primarily in Job, Psalms, and Isaiah. For instance,
It is I who made the earth
and created mankind upon it.
My own hands stretched out the heavens;
I marshaled their starry hosts.
Isaiah 45:12

and eleven other places.

Also, the light was not the sun. But nor was it God Himself. It was our own quasar in the center of the Milky Way galaxy. It is not there now, but 'burned out.' However, the further out we look into space -- which means the further back we look in time -- the brighter and brighter are those quasars in the middle of each galaxy, each associated with its own black hole. We have the black hole left, but the quasar died away about the fourth day of creation week. It was the directional light which, when the earth was set spinning, gave evening and morning, the first, second, and third days. By the fourth day, the sun was either created or lit, and it took over the job.

Hope that helps a bit.

[Aineo]

Boy am I glad you joined us.

[IAMFREE]

Good training found here!

[twohumble]

A few points here, if I may

1. Chrys, to some people the seven day first week is extraordinarily important. They reason that if the Bible could not get the beginning right, why trust it for anything else; or, at the least, where does one begin trusting it?

I totally agree with this point.

2. spunky, creation and evolution do NOT agree on the order of occurance at all! Creation has fruiting plants before any animals, for instance. It has birds before land life. In fact, it has the sun and the moon after the appearance of land on earth! You can't get a lot more different!

I totally disagree on this point. If you do a careful word study in Hebrew you will find no discrepency in the order of the creation account in scripture with fossil evidence in science. You view is based on faulty exegesis.

3. the "Big Bang" was a derogatory term used for the idea that the universe had expanded. Properly, it should perhaps have been called the Big Expansion, for nothing went 'bang'! What is interesting, however, is that the concept of a big expansion is exactly what the Bible presents. Twelve times God states that He stretched out the heavens. Ten of those times are in the past completed tense. It happened and was finished; it is not still expanding.

And this is EXACTLY why you lose credibility. Expansion has been shown from Hubble through others into today. This is not even in debate by ANY science in modern time (I should qualify this to 'credible' science). Believe me, the atheistic mindset of the secular scientist would LOVE a steady state universe, nothing would please them more, but the evidence shoots them down, and they begrudginly admit an expanding universe. Please don't even try to pass any ideas that we have a steady state universe on us, we are as past that as we are past Kant.

In Genesis 1:2, we learn that the earth had a cold start, not a hot one, for "the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Not the clouds, not the vapors, but the liquid waters.

Please Tuppence, this is absurd. The Bible touches on the basic points in creation but does not go into many details for a simple reason: the book is about God revelation of Himself to foster a relation with us, and teach us about Him. Its a book to build a relationship with Christ and point us to Him. Unnecessary information about the universe as it expanded, formed 4th generation stars, and rocky planets, is completely unneeded, and God gave us the ability to learn of that on our own.

God begins narration of the preparation of Earth for habitation by man once the Earth had cooled. Up to that point no life existed, hence no narration of that time frame was needed, except to state that it existed.

Your view that the earth was 'formed cool, since the earth contained water and not vapor' is pure illogical bunk. You presuppose quite a bit, and totally ignore TONS of data to the contrary. You fit your exegesis to your presuppositions and ignore the facts. This is what gives Christians a bad name in science. Please stop.

Also, the light was not the sun. But nor was it God Himself. It was our own quasar in the center of the Milky Way galaxy. It is not there now, but 'burned out.' However, the further out we look into space -- which means the further back we look in time -- the brighter and brighter are those quasars in the middle of each galaxy, each associated with its own black hole. We have the black hole left, but the quasar died away about the fourth day of creation week. It was the directional light which, when the earth was set spinning, gave evening and morning, the first, second, and third days. By the fourth day, the sun was either created or lit, and it took over the job.

Hope that helps a bit.

What light are you refering to in this passage? Interesting how you agree that looking at Quasars and their light means we are looking back in time. How far back do you think we are looking?

Do you really think that Earth was formed before the Sun? Remember the persepective of narration is 'hovering above the waters'....isn't it entirely possible that the perspective of narration is one where the sun 1st became visible on the 4th day, and was not 'created' on the forth day.

If you study Hebrew enough, you will realize that the verb used here can be present, or past tense...as in 'something already done', therefore to believe the Sun existed before the 4th day is NOT in any way contrary to scripture, and TOTALLY in agreement with known science. Remember, science and scripture were both created by God, so neither is wrong and neither is deceptive.

[tuppence]

twohumble...

To try to squeeze out of the Hebrew something that fits with supposed evolutionary/long ages sequences is truly what is bizarre. You are trying to tell us that EVERY Bible translator has the material wrong! Why do I have a problem with that???

Second, even Hubble himself doubted the redshift was indicative of universal expansion. Since then, Tifft, Guthrie, Napier, and a number of others have shown that the redshift measurements are quantized and this absolutely denies tying the redshift with possible universal expansion. And the redshift is the ONLY bit of evidence they have that the universe might still be expanding. In other words, if the redshift is the result of expansion (the Doppler effect), then the universe is not expanding smoothly, but in fits and starts.

Contrary to your ideas, this is not the steady state idea. For the universe WAS expanded, and very rapidly, during the first minutes and days of creation week. But it is no longer expanding.

As far as a cold start to the earth, you can scream and yell all you want, but the Bible says "waters." This only disagrees with some theorists and a lot of textbooks, but it does not disagree with the data itself.

There is no indication that God is beginning the narrative after anything. The Bible starts with "IN THE BEGINNING". The Hebrew context of verse two is a focusing of the narrative, not an indication of a lapse in time. In the beginning, the earth was formless and void and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. God knows how to communicate. He also knows how to tell the truth. It is modern science which is deciding God doesn't know what He is talking about. However the data do not disagree with Genesis, only with the long ages ideas.

You say I'm giving Christians a bad name in science. I don't think so. I'm the one with the data and you are the one with the ranting...

How far back are we looking to the edges of the universe? About 8,000 years' worth. This disagrees with the Masoretic text, but agrees entirely with the Alexandrian LXX, translated hundreds of years before by Hebrew scholars -- and was the one Christ and the Apostles and early church fathers all quoted from.

I don't know if the sun was created or 'lit' the fourth day, but I do know it is a first generation star and much younger than the second generation stars which exist near the center of galaxies. It was not shining before the fourth day.

Science, by the way, was not created by God. It is man's attempts to find out what God has done. Man's logic and desires to eliminate God get in the way, but still they try.

[Ecclesiastes76]

I got one for ya...

The bible is writen in a manor that anyone can pick it up, read it, and understand it. You aren't supposed to need a major in modern science to know what the bible says. If someone in Africa who has never been told the world is 'millions of years old' picks up a bible and starts reading, what are they going to think the truth telling bible is saying to them?

[Aineo]

Read some of our atheist members posts. The inaccuracy of Genesis 1 is usually discussed and used as a reason to disregard the whole Bible. You have made some dogmatic comments about all scientists accepting an expanding universe, which is a false statement. I suggest you read Strobel's "The Case for a Creator" where experts in astronomy debunk the expanding universe. There is also "In Six Days, Why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation".

Take the time to check out the Homosexuality Forum and read Ptolemy's reasons for denying the inerrancy of Scripture in order to justify being a gay Christian. Biblical inerrancy is at the very roots of Christianity and that includes Genesis 1.

[IAMFREE]

An example of light without the sun or moon or quasar can be found in Revelation 21:22-24. This is an example of a perfict universe just as the universe was perfict befor Adam fell.

[tuppence]

An example of light without the sun or moon or quasar can be found in Revelation 21:22-24. This is an example of a perfict universe just as the universe was perfict befor Adam fell.

I understand, but that is the new creation. This is the old one. And the fact is that the physical cause of the original light for the new earth is quite easy to account for.

[IAMFREE]

If God dose not change ever then his perfection is the same at both beginings.

[Ecclesiastes76]

God is eternal, neither of them are beginnings for Him, but I agree with your line of thought about Revelation showing that God is light.

[IAMFREE]

Thanks. "Beginings" is only for human understanding.

[Nickatwarwick]

Hallo,

Wondering if people could clarify/lend weight to some of their points by finding evidence for the following.

Anyone got some good sites for a "not expanding as we type" universe. [non creationist ones please.

And also any more in depth discussion on the hot/cold earth beginnings, from any source, would be cool.

I'm also going to start an new thread on the whole "any one should be able to read the bible without special knowledge tack", so we can keep this one focused. [hope no-one minds]

Thanks everyone for your contributions, this forum is once again providing many people with some very interesting reading.

God Bless,

Nick