The Bible is light years ahead of science

[RickD]

Believing the literal interpretation of the bible means believing the world is flat, Anne do you believe that or do you interpret that in a different manner than as literally intended? The world SO obviously has FOUR CORNERS.

ps. i know you are ignoring my posts, GJ ignorance is Grrreat!

Kristoffer, Where does the Bible say the world is flat? Please reference the verse, so I can see for myself. Thanks

[Kristoffer]

Sorry but I used to use the skeptics' annotated bible all the time and it really does(or imply) say that, somewhere.(at least in the translation that was used.)

I go find it now...

# Ezekiel proclaims that the world (which is flat and has four corners) is ending. 7:2, 6

[RickD]

Sorry but I used to use the skeptics' annotated bible all the time and it really does(or imply) say that, somewhere.(at least in the translation that was used.)

I go find it now...

# Ezekiel proclaims that the world (which is flat and has four corners) is ending. 7:2, 6

Kristoffer, Ezekiel 7:2-6 is just used to mean the whole land, not that the land is a square.

[zoegirl]

Kristoff, simply ask us the meaning of the scripture. Using skeptics bibles will only reveal your ignorance (and theirs)

There is certainly use of figurative language in scripture and like any piece of written language, understanding its full meaning depends on grammar, context, vocabulary, and historical usage.

[Kristoffer]

Kristoff, simply ask us the meaning of the scripture. Using skeptics bibles will only reveal your ignorance (and theirs)

There is certainly use of figurative language in scripture and like any piece of written language, understanding its full meaning depends on grammar, context, vocabulary, and historical usage.

well i said used to past tense. Its actually one of the things that got me thinking, so what could you say to that?

Do you think there are pitfalls in taking the bible to seriously?

[zoegirl]

But that is the whole point....you are using poor translations to borderline mock and then try to draw back when people call you on it...

Research and ask questions before making a committed comment, especially when you are dealing with a subject you are not fully aware of...

[Kristoffer]

But that is the whole point....you are using poor translations to borderline mock and then try to draw back when people call you on it...

Research and ask questions before making a committed comment, especially when you are dealing with a subject you are not fully aware of...

NIV with English+svenska(side by side), is that poor translation?

[zoegirl]

Sorry, I meant a poor interpretation. The Skeptics Bible is well known for not bothering to research the background to scripture

[Kristoffer]

Oh, Okay I can accept that Apology. I used to check that because...there was a Christian and I wanted to debate him. It was kind of a mutual deal, he wanted to convert me...I had wanted to de-convert him.

P.s. officially my 74% of my country is Church Of Sweden members, but actually its mostly secular.(with some exceptions)

[dayage]

4 Corners
Isaiah 11:12
Ezekiel 7:2
Revelation 7:1; 20:8

4 Winds
Jeremiah 49:36 (see directions below)
Ezekiel 37:9
Daniel 7:2; 8:8
Zech. 2:6
Matthew 24:31
Mark 13:27
Revelation 7:1 (see above corner)

Those are just another way to describe the directions (north, south, east, west). This had nothing to do with a flat earth.
Gen. 28:14; 1 Chron. 9:24; Joshua 11:2-3; Psalm 107:3; Isaiah 43:5; Jeremiah 49:36; Ezekiel 42:16-20; Zech. 14:4; Luke 13:29; Revelation 21:3

Yes, I like to beat a horse till he's good and dead.

[Author Anita Meyer]

Again, all good points Dayage! And thank you for all the time you may be putting into your posts on the subject. I did enjoy reading it, and it made some sparks fly in my head, but I am still strongly in favor of Noah's flood being a world-wide flood.

As far as the Hebrew wording goes… There is far more Hebrew word evidence that is describing a world-wide flood rather than just a local one. Additionally, Hebrew is a “conceptual” language which means that a word can have several similar meanings. The reason for this is because it is meant for the majority to understand and not just the educated.

Here are some things to think about:

After the flood, something profoundly drastic had occurred. The atmospheric conditions were different. There are subtle clues in the Bible that bare evidence of this. For instance, shortly after the Great Flood when Noah grew a vineyard and got drunk off of it. Its possible that Noah did not realize that the atmospheric conditions played a part in grapes (wine) fermenting twice as fast. Genesis 9:20-21 - Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Noah was so mad about this that he had cursed Canaan for not knowing what to do with him when he became drunk. Genesis 9:22-27 - Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, Blessed be the Lord, the G-d of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May G-d extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave.

It's highly likely that the early earth conditions had been more pressured with twice the amount of oxygen and pressurized like a hyperbaric chamber. Geologist know that the early earth did in fact have more oxygen. Today they use hyperbaric chambers in hospitals to speed up healing.

Oh, and one more thing… Geologists are now fully discovering that the ENTIRE earth was once completely covered by “marine flood sedimentation” (salt water from the sea) consisting of marine fossils which are found in all rock strata.

[Gman]

There are problems with the big bang hypothesis. Red-shifts really do not support it since stars are moving away from us.

Explain how red-shifts disprove the Big Bang theory.. And what about blue-shifts?

There are also things like light-travel time, missing antimatter, ripples of galaxies and young galaxies too old for the big bang. For instance a relatively recent discovery called the “Francis Filament” found a string of fully formed galaxies. It was here that astronomers calculated the super cluster (which is at the edge of the universe) was around 200-500(?) million light-years across.

To old for the Big Bang theory? How does that support the YEC belief? Also in the case of the distribution of mass, how does the “Francis Filament” pose a problem for the Big Bang?

The problem here is that it contradicts the evolutionary timescale. It seems that these galaxies exist when according to the “Big Bang” idea, they should not have had time to form.

No enough information.. They have more than enough time to form.. Please name your sources.

[zoegirl]

Hello Zoegirl,

The Hawaiian volcano “Kilauea” was recorded to have erupted less than 200 years ago and the lava from this eruption was submerged under water. It was later dated to be 22 million years old. Other samples come from “Hualalai” which erupted in 1800 were dated to be 300 thousand million years old.

I would like your reference please, because I am finding nothing like you say when I google search. Stop being obscure and simply provide your reference!!!

Here is your basic problem...you are making conclusions erroneously, based on not understanding the methodology:

From asa3.org

Some young-Earth proponents recently reported that rocks were dated by the potassium-argon method to be a several million years old when they are really only a few years old. But the potassium-argon method, with its long half-life, was never intended to date rocks only 25 years old. These people have only succeeded in correctly showing that one can fool a single radiometric dating method when one uses it improperly. The false radiometric ages of several million years are due to parentless argon, as described here, and first reported in the literature some fifty years ago. Note that it would be extremely unlikely for another dating method to agree on these bogus ages. Getting agreement between more than one dating method is a recommended practice.

http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/wiens.html#page%204

NOtice that the issue has been known and discussed and PUBLIC since the fifties!! This is an issue that is essentially a non-issue.


In the future, it is proper form to provide your sources! Provide links if necessary, but it is rather rude to not provide the source of one's information.

Posting this again since it has not been responded to...

[Author Anita Meyer]

Hello Gman,

In so many ways the Bible tells us that the earth is the “spiritual center” of the Universe - the center and focus of G-d's attention and concern. We know from Genesis 1:14-15 that the heavens exists for the benefit of us on earth. However in the future, science (astronomy) will eventually discover that the earth IS ACTUALLY THE PHYSICAL CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE (as it is in the middle of spheres called “red-shifts“ and our milky way galaxy is right in the middle of these spheres).

But you ask how red-shifts disprove the Big Bang theory. And what about blue-shifts?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2635

To old for the Big Bang theory? How does that support the YEC belief? Also in the case of the distribution of mass, how does the “Francis Filament” pose a problem for the Big Bang?

The strings are to large for the early Universe. It also has to do with time, dark matter clouds, smaller clumps of matter, clouds of gas and dust, hydrogen atoms turning into helium atoms giving off visible light and radiation.

Here is a report from NASA:

http://www.universe.nasa.gov/news/galax ... n0704.html

I would like your reference please, because I am finding nothing like you say when I google search. Stop being obscure and simply provide your reference!!!

Sorry Zoegirl, good sources cannot be found on the Internet. However they are in my book if you're interested. However I am aware of the discrepancies on both sides. My assessment in all this is that radiocarbon dating is still an imperfect science. For everything the Evolutionists find, the Creationists has a reason for, and vice versa. Unfortunately there is no winning here on either side yet.

However what I do find refreshing is the helium findings in granite rock. Granite also contains within it tiny zircon crystals, which contain radioactive elements. During this process, atoms migrate out of the zircons and granite rapidly. Within the zircon crystals, any helium atoms generated by nuclear decay in the distant past should have long ago dissipated away escaping from the tiny zircon crystals present in the granite rock. However, this is not what is found… what is found is large amounts of helium that are still presently trapped inside the zircons. This should not be the case! Yet there it is. And what becomes more apparent is that polonium trapped in granite is also genuinely aged correctly, when correlated with the helium that's found in granite rocks is one of the byproducts of uranium decay. Uranium is a heavy element that breaks down into lead and it also produces helium at the same time. The uranium is called the “parent element” and the lead and helium are the “daughter elements”. Radioisotope dating of lead is analyzed to be millions/billions of years old, but miraculously when we measure the helium it gives us a completely different date for the age of the earth of ONLY 6,000 YEARS (which fits perfectly into the Biblical time span). We have been measuring the wrong clock! All this time radioisotope dating has been analyzing the “lead” in granite which estimates in the millions of years, however the “helium” gives us a reading of only 6,000 years.

As usual the Evolutionists cry “contamination”. As I said this is still an imperfect science. This is a science we have to keep a eye on, as it goes back and forth. I'm sure you can find many references on the Internet regarding this.

1 Timothy 1:3-4 - Teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables and ENDLESS GENEALOGIES.

[zoegirl]

Sorry Zoegirl, good sources cannot be found on the Internet. However they are in my book if you're interested. However I am aware of the discrepancies on both sides. My assessment in all this is that radiocarbon dating is still an imperfect science. For everything the Evolutionists find, the Creationists has a reason for, and vice versa. Unfortunately there is no winning here on either side yet.

They you can certainly reference them from the references in your book!!! I am not buying your book but you made an assertion about improper dating.

So far I have provided a reference that explains away the discrepancies in your example of volcanoes. You may tackle that if your wish. Radiometric dating is not imperfect, it has been validated time and again. Many YEC's do not fully understand Radiometric dating (as the reference showed).