I have been accused of demanding too much from the Bible but the truth is that I demand only that the Bible demonstrate what its proponents claim for it.

If you claim that the Bible is inerrant, then I demand that it be inerrant. If you claim that the Bible has a Superior Being as its author, then I demand that it be superior to what man was capable of writing at the time.

When it comes to inerrancy, less is better. The more details that are provided the greater the chance that one or more of those details will be wrong.

Below is my rewrite of Genesis 1 & 2 to demonstrate what I am talking about with regard to inerrancy:

In the beginning God created heaven and earth and all living things. He then created man in His own image, male and female He created them, and He blessed them, saying: "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."

The man was called Adam; the woman was called Eve. They were both naked yet they felt no shame. And God looked upon all that he had created and saw that it was good.

God placed man in the garden of Eden, which He planted in the east, in which grew every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; with the tree of life in the middle of the garden and also the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."

Now read the real Genesis to see all of the things that I left out. Why did I leave them out? Because they either conflicted with themselves (i.e., the second creation story conflicting with the first) or they conflicted with what we now know or generally accept to be true (e.g., the big bang, the order of creation, the length of time of creation, evaporation of water, some type of evolution, etc.).

So what do you think? Isn't my version of Genesis 1 & 2 better than the original? Don't you think that God needed a good editor?

-- Bonzo's Cousin (fakeaccount@fakeaccount.com), December 10, 2004

Answers

The Bible is inerrant. What is most certainly not inerrant is your personal interpretations of it. There is no faster road to heresy than an inerrant book in the hands of a fallible interpreter. That's why God told the hierarchy of His Church, and no-one else, "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven". That's why the Word of God refers to His Church, and no-one else, as "the pillar and foundation of truth".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 10, 2004.

Wow, Cousin!
That's some re-write! Leave your resume and God will call you next time He speaks inerrantly.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 10, 2004.

You guys must admit that had Genesis been written my way, science and religion could have avoided a lot of conflicts. Couldn't God foresee that?

-- Bonzo's Cousin (fakeaccount@fakeaccount.com), December 10, 2004.

You know, Paul, your belief in the Catholic Church's role as the infallible interpreter of the Bible is very logical. It really does make a lot of sense. But it hasn't lived up to that role.

Wouldn't it have been something if the Catholic Church supported Galileo rather than condemning him? The Protestants would have had a field day crowing about how this was proof that the Catholic Church was ignoring the Bible. Then the Prots would have had to eat crow when Galileo was proved right. That might have killed off Protestantism right then and there.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (fakeaccount@fakeaccount.com), December 10, 2004.

True science and true religion have no conflicts. Truth can't conflict with truth. If your personal understanding of science conflicts with your personal interpretations of Scripture, then you have a personal problem. Either your understanding of science or your understanding of Scripture, or both, is flawed. There are many who possess an accurate understanding of both bodies of knowledge, who therefore see no such supposed conflicts.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 10, 2004.

Cousin ought to rewrite Shakespeare for us. He was a lot more metaphorical than us.

But, after you cut Shakespeares's metaphors and similes out, you no longer have Shakespeare, much less inerrant truth.

God speaks metaphorically and/or literally; depending. But always the inerrant truth.

I notice Bonzo's Cuz doesn't argue the truth or error of God's prophesies. Only His metaphors.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 11, 2004.

Bozo's cpusin, why the fixation on Gallilio? I mean relly the Myht tht the evil Catholic hcurhc, whuch taught geocentrism as per the Bible, was agaisnt hti noble scnetists who discovered the truth tht the earht moved about the sun and was ocndmened for this teahcing, is a lie. The Catholic churhc didnt out Galilio on inquesition for his teahcign yhat the earht mov around the sun. ( Indeed, the Bible doesnt say the earht is the centre of the Universe, I mentioend this in another thread...) Inteas, they put him under inqiesition for defying a paupal aorder. defiance of papal authority, not hios sicnetific thdeories, caused him to be subjec tto hos "Dire" punishment. ( House arrest in a comfotable villa, eyah what agony...)

Gallilio wasnt even teahign soemthign new! A Cahtolic Monk by the name of Nicola Capernicus forts issued the theory, so as to help correct the Calender. here is the Kicker. Capernicus was rewarded for his ideas, byut he hcurhc, and only condemend by the secular Sicetists of the day who accepted Aristotilianism! The church never had an official position on Geocentirsm or heliocentirsm.

Dont you even read the facts?

As to your initial post...

My answers in {} Brackets.

---------

I have been accused of demanding too much from the Bible but the truth is that I demand only that the Bible demonstrate what its proponents claim for it.

{I only demand you try to undertsnad it, and learn hisotry. I mean the constant use of Gallilio, the btilliant sicntist, VS the Cahtolci Chruch and its stupid veiws base dont eh Bibel, si clear evience that yo prefer popular myhtolgy to fact.

The Bible was written for to be undertsood, not to be disparaged by immature minds such as your own.}-Zarove

If you claim that the Bible is inerrant, then I demand that it be inerrant.

{What if I dot claim this? Many Christaisn dont you know. I am not among them, but Im just aksing...

Besides, what is Innerent? It only means free form error, it doesnt mean scientifically accurate . The tye of book you want the Bibel to be didnt even exist till the 19th century.}-Zarove

If you claim that the Bible has a Superior Being as its author, then I demand that it be superior to what man was capable of writing at the time.

{This isnt the claim of eithe rmyself or the Cahtolic chruch. The Cahtolci chruch states that Human authors under inspiration from God wrte the Bible, but the spacific authors are noentheless Human...}- Zarove

When it comes to inerrancy, less is better.

{Says who?}-Zarove

The more details that are provided the greater the chance that one or more of those details will be wrong.

{Which matters how to content? ISnt it beter if, you have an infalalble , well detailed docu,ent that tells much, as pposed to an infallable but brief and vuage Document?}-Zarove

Below is my rewrite of Genesis 1 & 2 to demonstrate what I am talking about with regard to inerrancy:

{Yiur re-write is nothign btu an arrogant sham, base dupon your own cinceited need to feel popmous and superuot yourself. Such is the way of fools.}-Zarove

In the beginning God created heaven and earth and all living things. He then created man in His own image, male and female He created them, and He blessed them, saying: "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."

The man was called Adam; the woman was called Eve. They were both naked yet they felt no shame. And God looked upon all that he had created and saw that it was good.

God placed man in the garden of Eden, which He planted in the east, in which grew every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; with the tree of life in the middle of the garden and also the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."

Now read the real Genesis to see all of the things that I left out. Why did I leave them out? Because they either conflicted with themselves (i.e., the second creation story conflicting with the first) or they conflicted with what we now know or generally accept to be true (e.g., the big bang, the order of creation, the length of time of creation, evaporation of water, some type of evolution, etc.).

{You arent too bright, are you? I eman relaly, all you do is make the same stupid ahtiest argumens I hear all the time on apologetics board and debates. Teh supposed "Two creation stoties" arent two creation stoies. had it ever odccured to you that, rahter than chapoter 2 recappign chapter one, an contradicting it, the events of chapter 2 FOLLOW the events o chapter one in sequential order? ( In short, Adam and eve where created after Humanity was made on the 6th day, rather than day 6 referign to Adam and eve, and makign this two seperate creation acocunts. its a running narrative lad or lass, not two seperate sections.) The Big Bang theory was formulate dby a CATHOLIC PROEST for ceing out loud! He speculated hat the Univers emust have had a beginnign when atheistic and naturlaotsic sicnetists assumed it had always been, a concept caleld steady State theory.

Likewise, the openign chapter of Genesis, called " The beginning" was written in poetic couplets, called Detrametre line, the repetition of "Evenign and morning" is the clear sign left in all english translations. The putpose wa to make it easier to memorise the stges of developemn of the Universe, nto to act as a literal roadmao to creation.Reemember, it origionated as Oral tradition. Not written text. it wasnt written dow till Moses.

The ancient Kabbalists ( not the new age hippies of today) speculated on an earth "Many tiusands" of years old. ( No concept of milliosn, much less billions, a this time) based on the same scrioptturs you site, and even St. Jerome claimed that the openign chapters where poetic and not literal.

Once you undertsnas it as poetry and get the general, butiful meanign form it, then you relaie that all your ommissions ar euseless and in fact arrogant.}-Zarove

So what do you think? Isn't my version of Genesis 1 & 2 better than the original? Don't you think that God needed a good editor?

{No, I htink your pompous, arrogant, and a fool. You dotn knwo hosotry ( Hence why you keep mentionign Gallilio, thinkijgn he eas put on tiral for contracdictign the geocentirsm of the HCurhc, and not for goign againtst the Pope.) you dotn knwo the meanign of scritpotuee, and you presume htat the "two conflicting and contradictory' creation stories are hopelessly irreconcilable, even though there arent two seperatr stories, revelaign you get all your information for sceptical websites and books and can tthink for yorself, and you presume to have the ability to edit Gods work to make it beter by ommiting parts so you can feel superior tot he Biblical authors and make yourself feel smug. Face it lad, you arnt exactly beign very clever here, your just acting like a spoiled child.

This sort of thing is gettign old. I mean what next? The whole " The word elohim means gods not God therefore the Genesis acocunt it rellay Polytheoitic' line? How about the whole "Attrocoties on the Bibel" routine? relaly do you think we havent heard this before?}- Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 11, 2004.

Oh and when you wrote this...

"You guys must admit that had Genesis been written my way, science and religion could have avoided a lot of conflicts. Couldn't God foresee that? "

You whernt too bright either. I eman relay, what conflicts? Creaitonism? Thats the olnly religiosu beleif that conflicts with the Genesis acojt. you cant even uese the Galilio myth hre as Genesis isnt Geocentric. ( And yes I have read it...)

relaly the "Science Vs religion" stick of yours is an old cobbler bag. Toss it aside and try to learn what we on this baord rellay beleive, and stop beign so presumptive and pompous.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 11, 2004.

Goodness..just listen to yourself.. "I demand".."MY re-write".."I think"..

"I" "ME" "MY" ..You may want to take a few moments to look over your posts and count the number of times that you refer to yourself in a possessive demanding manner..

The bible wasn't written to please any particular individual, or to satisfy a person's "demands"..it IS the Word of God. Folks could type on the forum for days and weeks in reply to your "demands" and still, sadly, you probably will not understand or have your eyes opened to the simple truth that it will not be as you "demand".

How I wish computers could include voice sounds on forums..the "tone" here is one of real sadness that you do not understand. I'm praying that someday your focus will turn from yourself and towards God..and that instead of demanding for "proof" of Him and His Word, that you come to learn to HUMBLY ASK God to come into your heart. Until that time, I'll ask for you.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 11, 2004.

“Galileo wasnt even teaching something new! A Catholic Monk by the name of Nicola Copernicus first issued the theory, so as to help correct the Calender. Here is the Kicker. Copernicus was rewarded for his ideas, by the Church, and only condemned by the secular Scientists of the day who accepted Aristotelianism!” (Zarove)

Not to mention that the heliocentric theory was put forward by the ancient Greeks and was known from before the Church even began; but even though the Church condemned many heresies, it never condemned heliocentrism. And 200 years before Galileo, the German philosopher- priest Nicholas of Cusa (Niklaus Kues) taught that the earth moves through space, and even to some extent anticipated Einstein’s theory of relativity! The Church then made him a bishop and a Cardinal, despite the objections of the civil authorities.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 13, 2004.

You people are only deceiving yourselves if you think that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Why do you think that, anyway? Because somebody told you so, that's why. Your priest, your parents, or whoever. It's the same for the Mormons. It's the same for the Moslems. Adults telling their children that a particular book is the inerrant Word of God.

It is only when man ignores the Bible in his quest for truth that he has been able to advance his understanding of nature. Then the Bible is "re-interpreted" to conform to this new understanding. Six days don't really mean six days, forming man from the dust of the earth doesn't really mean that man was formed from the dust of the earth, the sun racing back to where it rises doesn't really mean that the sun races back to where it rises. The Bible can never be proven wrong because its words have no meaning.

That's why I love the Creationists and Geocentricists. They give an honest reading of the Bible. For them the Bible really does mean what it says. And their faith in the Bible is so strong they will continue to believe in it even if they may look foolish to others.

Paul M. wrote:

If your personal understanding of science conflicts with your personal interpretations of Scripture, then you have a personal problem.

The Bible says that the earth was covered with water and that God created a dome to separate the waters above from the waters below:

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." (Genesis 1:6 KJV) (Firmament -- Hebrew word, Raqiya -- considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above -- KJV with Strong's Numbers from www.biblestudytools.net)

"After God's creative activity, part of this vast body forms the salt-water seas (Genesis 1:9-10); part of it is the fresh water under the earth (Psalm 33:7; Ezekiel 31:4), which wells forth on the earth as springs and fountains (Genesis 7:11; 8:2; Proverb 3:20). Part of it, "the upper water" (Psalm 148:4; Daniel 3:60), is held up by the dome of the sky (Genesis 1:6-7), from which rain descends on the earth (Genesis 7:11; 2 Kings 7:2, 19; Psalm 104:13)." (Footnote 2, Genesis 1, NAB, USCCB website)

Do you understand this, Paul? The sky is a solid dome holding water above it:

"God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it. God called the dome 'the sky.'" (Genesis 1:7-8 NAB)

When God wants it to rain He opens floodgates in the dome so that some of the water above the dome falls to the earth:

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month: it was on that day that All the fountains of the great abyss burst forth, and the floodgates of the sky were opened." (Genesis 7:11 NAB)

Science, on the other hand, says that rain is caused by surface water evaporating, condensing in the atmosphere, and then falling back to earth.

Anyway, that's my "personal interpretation" of Scripture and my "personal interpretation" of science. So I do have a "personal problem" trying to reconcile Scripture with science. Perhaps you can help me out here.

eugene c. chavez wrote:

God speaks metaphorically and/or literally; depending.

My response:

Depending on what? Is the sky a solid dome? No. OK, so we can't read "raqiya" (firmament) literally. We must read it metaphorically. But what is the metaphor? What is it being compared to? To a solid dome. Why?

So that it can hold up the rainwater, that's why. This isn't metaphor. This is science, Bible style.

ZAROVE wrote:

The Catholic churhc didnt out Galilio on inquesition for his teahcign yhat the earht mov around the sun. ( Indeed, the Bible doesnt say the earht is the centre of the Universe, I mentioend this in another thread...) Inteas, they put him under inqiesition for defying a paupal aorder. defiance of papal authority, not hios sicnetific thdeories, caused him to be subjec tto hos "Dire" punishment.

My response:

The order that Galileo defied was an order to stop promoting heliocentricism as a fact rather than as a hypothesis that served as a useful tool for astronomers:

"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion...and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning...contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture...

"The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

"The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

"Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture.

"We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture." (Condemnation of Galileo, June 22, 1633)

Gallilio wasnt even teahign soemthign new!

That's not my point. My point is that what he was teaching conflicts with the Bible.

The tye of book you want the Bibel to be didnt even exist till the 19th century.

That's not true. My motive for re-writing Genesis was to show you that I am not being unreasonable.

Yiur re-write is nothign btu an arrogant sham, base dupon your own cinceited need to feel popmous and superuot yourself. Such is the way of fools.

???????????? I don't get it.

...you presume to have the ability to edit Gods work to make it beter by ommiting parts so you can feel superior tot he Biblical authors and make yourself feel smug.

Who says that it's God's work? You? I'm trying to show you why it CANNOT be God's work but you refuse to give me a fair hearing.

Lesley wrote:

Goodness..just listen to yourself.. "I demand".."MY re-write".."I think"..

My response:

Listen to ME?!?!?! What about ZAROVE??? You should admonish him for the relentless insults he hurls at me.

the "tone" here is one of real sadness that you do not understand.

If this is sadness I'd hate to see what you guys are like when you get angry!

I'm praying that someday your focus will turn from yourself and towards God.

My focus is towards truth. As for praying, may I suggest that you take up a more productive pastime?

Steve wrote:

...even though the Church condemned many heresies, it never condemned heliocentrism.

My response:

Oh yes it did. Perhaps not in a formal ex cathedra manner, making it a part of dogma. But it did condemn it. Just read the Church's condemnation of Galileo that I posted above.

And why did the Church condemn heliocentricism? Because it conflicted with Scripture, that's why. And that's my point. The Bible is wrong, wrong, wrong.

And 200 years before Galileo, the German philosopher- priest Nicholas of Cusa (Niklaus Kues) taught that the earth moves through space, and even to some extent anticipated Einstein’s theory of relativity! The Church then made him a bishop and a Cardinal, despite the objections of the civil authorities.

I am not trying to show that the Catholic Church is hostile to science. I am simply trying to show that science has proved that the Bible is wrong.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (fakeaccount@fakeaccount.com), December 13, 2004.

The only you've ignored is the possibility that you may be wrong. You ought to consider that, because you can't persist in attacking something you won't try to understand. That's the way of the fool. The Bible's words are NOT faulty science. They're only God's way of revealing Himself. That's the main purpose; and a secondary one is the first sin. We do in fact learn that two parents were created, and they sinned.

These matters are still debatable enough that you could offer constructive constructive criticism. Instead you fail utterly; trying to convict God of lying or inventing the facts. It's nothing but your preening you've offered. Save it for the sitcom, Bonzie. You're not tall enough for this forum, maybe the boob-tube will give you stature.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 13, 2004.

You people are only deceiving yourselves if you think that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

{Makign a decree is not the same as civil discussion. ignoring all we say to continue this line of attack is in and of itsself evidence that you arent wise enough to tell us what is and is not true, since you will simpley argue your point wihtout ever admiting the possibility of error on your own side.Your argument is based on a concluion you had before the train of logic began. This is a logical fallacy.}-Zarove

Why do you think that, anyway?

{Because it seems to be the case. Ultimatley thouhg, I nbeleive he Bible becase I have exoperieced life and know what it rteaches is the truth. This is the ultimate reason to beelive anyhtign regardless of authirship. This is also a lesson you ignore.}-Zarove

Because somebody told you so, that's why.

{Thanks for reading our minds and tellign us we are all drones who cant think for ourselves. This isnt a sterytype, its the turuth! Come off it lad, I examined the eidence for myself. I use to have some rather liebral veiws when it came to theolohgy, then I grew up. I dont beelive the Bible because soemone tld me to, and indeed I left Chruhc from the tears 1999 to 2004. I beleive the Bible because unlike you, I studied it, examined it, and learned form it,a nd found it reliable, not because someone else told me to. Stop makign presumptions.}-Zarove

Your priest, your parents, or whoever.

{HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I know more abouthte Bible than my mother, I have no Preist, I grew up cruch of Christ, it has no ordaiend clergy, and I left the church because of pesnal reasons. I beelive because I read it, understood it, and saw how it applied to life. Not becuse Im a mindless drone, and repeating this nonsence only makes you look more a fool.

Stop quoting ld Atheist sterotypes and start listenign for once. Dialouge isnt made by people proclaimign and expectin others to bow down, and your agrge at us for not agreeing when you present bad argumets and force them upon us is evidence of a very unstable mind on your own end. the only reason you beleive Sicneee contradicts rleigion, and that Gallilio was placed before the Inquesition for his Heliocentirsm, and that everytign in religion is myth and fable is because xodmone told YOU these thigns and you just parrot them back, but think your a freethinker because you dont follow religion. Harldy logical relaly.}-Zarove

It's the same for the Mormons.

{Making blanket accusations of any given group is wrong. Its called Bigotry.Many Mormons join as converts, and have varied reasons to join. Many are intellegent, capable, and sound. I may htink there wrong, but this doesnt mean all of hrm just shut theur brian off and do what the Hcurhc tells them. I am mature enough to relaise its far more compelxed than this... you are not.}-Zarove

It's the same for the Moslems.

{See above. Many peopel think, reason, pray, and contemplate before joinign Islam as well... only a igot and fool woudl think that there is only one reason for conversion to islam.}-Zarove

Adults telling their children that a particular book is the inerrant Word of God.

{What about Adult COnverts? I mean, relaly, here you asusme that all christains, all Muslims, and all Mormons, are just told to beelive and do, and are told this form chuldhood. I know a woman who converted to Islam right here in dayton. She never heard of the Koran until she was in her 20's. Shes 25 now. Obviously her parent didnt tell her the Koran was the wrd of God, least of all since they are atheists...

Again, blanket statements liek this are childish and immature, and are obviously erroneous.Just examine the real world sometimes.}-Zarove

It is only when man ignores the Bible in his quest for truth that he has been able to advance his understanding of nature.

{This is a bald faced lie. I mean it. Gallilio whom you vaunt so highly regularly read his Bible. Likewise, such men as desCarte, Spinoza, and Marcelles all read regulardly. Inded, so did Lewis Pasteure, a faithful Catholic.

Wanna know soemthign relaly funny? Issac Newton, one of the most Brulliant mind in all of History, and my own Countryman, whi fatered all of Modern hysics , and was the foundation fo it all till einstein, write over a million words on Bible Prophecy alone. Are you tellign me that Newton Ifgnroed the Bible? The Bible was his inpsiration to pursue sicnece int he first place!

Are you relaly that ignorant of hisotry and theology as to proclaim that only by ognoring the Bibel we advance? Did Newton hold us back?> Really how stupid are you?

even in more recdent years, Geroge Washington Carver PRAYER AND READ HIS BIBLE and asked God to show him a use for peanuts, and found over 1000 used.

These men not only didnt ignore there Bibels, but found it instrumental in there asssments of nature.

By saying that we only advance by ignorign it, yo disparage all these men and claim they didnt rellay help us advance. Are you relaly willign to mak this claim?}-Zarove

Then the Bible is "re-interpreted" to conform to this new understanding.

{See above lad. This is a lie, just lie you lied and sad we only advance by ignorign the Bible... there is no excise for your ignorance, sicne you refuse to listen tot he truth. You refuse to support your allogations. you merly proclaim.}-Zarove

Six days don't really mean six days,

{Yeah that was reinterpreted after Darwin... St.Jerome lived after Chafles Darwin right? oh wait, he lived centuries before... so did Rabbi Alezar... 3rd Century BC for him... oh well...}-Zarove

forming man from the dust of the earth doesn't really mean that man was formed from the dust of the earth,

{Did you know the allegorical intreptetation is centuries old??? It wasnt reinterpreted in recent centuries...}-Zarove

the sun racing back to where it rises doesn't really mean that the sun races back to where it rises.

{Back to ecclesiasgted...yeah that cant be Phenomenological language, it must mean that Solmin as a Geocentrist and he though the sun moved aorunf hte earth. There is no way to make it read any other way and only us gullible cristains try to force it to when common snece ells us othewise... and everytime I gear soemone mentioin sunrise I knwo there an idiot becaus f it...

Again, phenomenological language doest prove a case oen way otr another... harping on this as you do proves only that you are a closed minded fool.}-Zarove

The Bible can never be proven wrong because its words have no meaning.

{This is another lie. Just as you lied abotu the claim that we only advsance by ignoring it, and you lie about the reinterpretaiton in light ofnew facts. You are too ignorant of history and sicnece and theology t mak these claims.

The Bible has more meanign than any other book I have ever seen, meanign of deep humanity, o spiritual enlightenemnt, and of great epic understandign of human natre, and of Gods love fr us. The meanign is, however, unclear to you, as you simpley refuse to look at it and unsetrstand, and seek nly to attack it.Diliberatley preventign yourself frm undertsandign things and seekign them out dosnt lead to wisdom or advancement.}-Zarove

That's why I love the Creationists and Geocentricists. They give an honest reading of the Bible.

{No, they dont... least of all th Geocentrists, many of whom arent Christain. (Most worldwide are Hindu.)}-Zarove

For them the Bible really does mean what it says.

{For me it relaly emans what it esays, but wen it says " The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." Thi si a reference to sunrise. simpely saying the only honest way to inerpret thi verse is that the sun revovled around the earht, an tit was clealry written by a Geocentirst, ignroes the obvious fact that the vrse merley references sunrise. I say the verse is literal, btu using Phenomenological language still under employment today, and thus cannot be used to support Geocentrism. You only think that it supports geicnetirstm and that geocentirsm is the only hoenst conclusion for it becuse you WANT this to be the case, and refuse stalworthly to examine the possibility that you may be misrepresenting a text by takign a quote out of context.

Shoud I discard reason to find it? That woudlk be like committiung suicide to save my own life.}-Zarove

And their faith in the Bible is so strong they will continue to believe in it even if they may look foolish to others.

{You look foolihs sompmey base dupon the fac tthat you make claims everyone knwos are flase and refuse to reexamien your claims and think about hwat your relaly saying.

Like the ecclesiasties quote which "Obviopsuly" is geicentirc, when it actlaly referign only to sunruse and sunset... only an idiot woudl use this as proof that a Biblical literalist is automaticlaly a geocentrist, and yet here you are...}-Zarove

Paul M. wrote:

If your personal understanding of science conflicts with your personal interpretations of Scripture, then you have a personal problem.

The Bible says that the earth was covered with water and that God created a dome to separate the waters above from the waters below:

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." (Genesis 1:6 KJV)

{This shows your ignorance of the Hebrew language. Whats the word for "Infinite expance?" Ill answer below...}-Zarove

(Firmament -- Hebrew word, Raqiya -- considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above -- KJV with Strong's Numbers from www.biblestudytools.net)

{They are wrong. I know, I stidies Hebrew for three eyars. I can speak and read ancient Hebrew.Surprised, no?

Now please listen and don jump to the clonclusion that im blindign myself tot he obvious. considder what im saying.

The Hebrew Langage at this time was very primative, and lack ed the ability to express cerian things, linguistic limitaiton exists in all languages, but is more pronounced to an englush speaker since english is the most descriptuve of languages, an in contrast tohebrew is very advanced.

There is no way in the Hebrew language to express an infinite numner, and no way to express open spae.

Since there s no way to express open space, and definator point must be established for thr Hebrew.

The term transalted "Firmamaent" in the kJV is a definitive,but it is also unerstood as meanign an open space.

Yes, I know, im jist deluded an ignorignt he plain reaidng. Heaven forbid my collage education and undertsanding of this language has helped me unerstand it.

However, the firmament isnt nessisarily proof that the Ancient hebrews beleived that a dome covered the earth, its only the end result of there inability to express anyhting in an expance and needed to limit the distance in order to convey it linguisticlaly. The firmament isnt meant to be taken as an actual firmament. and no, im not reinterpretign the Bibel form itspalin meaning, this can be found, again, in ancient documents and Midrashic tradtion datign to at least the exile to babylon.}-Zarove

"After God's creative activity, part of this vast body forms the salt- water seas (Genesis 1:9-10); part of it is the fresh water under the earth (Psalm 33:7; Ezekiel 31:4), which wells forth on the earth as springs and fountains (Genesis 7:11; 8:2; Proverb 3:20). Part of it, "the upper water" (Psalm 148:4; Daniel 3:60), is held up by the dome of the sky (Genesis 1:6-7), from which rain descends on the earth (Genesis 7:11; 2 Kings 7:2, 19; Psalm 104:13)." (Footnote 2, Genesis 1, NAB, USCCB website)

{They are mistaken. Thee never wasa dome on the sjy, nor did the Hebrews beelive in such. This is theproblem with Modern scholarship wishing to aquiese to skeptical sources, which I see all too often.

They ignore the obvious.

Thee is no way to convey in Hebrew an open expance and they needed yo limit the exmapnce, its a linguistic problem , not a theological one. No tthat I expect you to listen... I expect yo to trot out all he argumetns I hear all the time...and claim tat im just burryign my head int he sand becase i refuse to listen...all th whoel you will refuse to lsietn t us...}-Zarove

Do you understand this, Paul? The sky is a solid dome holding water above it:

{Do you understand that the Bible says no such thing, and thesolid dome canard is nohtign relaly but a linguistical trap. Again, there is no way for the Hebre to refer to an expance, so they had to use the term "Firmament". Likewise, they had no way to refer to "Banks" of a river, and claled them "Loips". The fact that the Hebrew language was primative and imperfect is on dispaly here, not the beekive htat the Sky wa a dome...Again, I expect fully for you to ignore me here...}-Zarove

"God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it. God called the dome 'the sky.'" (Genesis 1:7-8 NAB)

{And again, the Hebrew language laced the ability to speak of an oen expance and his was the closest analouge they had. The Irony is that, sicnetificlaly speakign the Earth IS surrounded bya dome, its called the Atmophhere... its a dome of Air, but a dome noentheless......

But, I'll stick ot the standard linguistical analystis of the book, and continue to remind you that the term here is the onl oen they codl have used even if they had all our moern understanding sinc hte Hebrew language had no ability to express an infinite expance. Want to prove me wrong? Try typing in Ancient Hebrew " God made the open sky". You cant.}-Zarove

When God wants it to rain He opens floodgates in the dome so that some of the water above the dome falls to the earth:

{This is bad exegesis, not good reading...}-Zarove

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month: it was on that day that All the fountains of the great abyss burst forth, and the floodgates of the sky were opened." (Genesis 7:11 NAB)

{ Now you are beign overliteral. But armed with your Knwoeldge that the sky has a firmament, or dome, and the Hebrews, who afre geocntirsts, eleive that this dome has windows that are opened, this verse ocnfirms it...

Beign realistic for justa minuet, one can expalint he phehrasieng as simpley a figure of speech, and the furmament has alreayd been explaiend as the ony mean to coney the thought of an open sky... but again, you wul ignore this, sicne you have all the answerd and we are just deperate an refse to lok at the facts...}- Zarove

Science, on the other hand, says that rain is caused by surface water evaporating, condensing in the atmosphere, and then falling back to earth.

{So does the Bible... Job, the Oldest extant book int he Tanahk, knw of the water cycle. Read chspter 36...Its not lielly that subsequent books such as the Torah woudl be ignorant of these facts...}-Zarove

Anyway, that's my "personal interpretation" of Scripture and my "personal interpretation" of science.

{ You get both wrong, sicn yo don knwo sicnce well euhg to speak, don knwo the scruptres that well, and don seek to understand either, but rather to attack one with the other...}-Zarove

So I do have a "personal problem" trying to reconcile Scripture with science. Perhaps you can help me out here.

{I just did. The dome, or firmament, descrbed in Genesis is not nessisarily proof that the Ancient Hebrrws beleived a dome covered the Earth, as you find on Skeptical websites. Rather, it is evidence form the poor Linguistical developnent f the time. You cannot, in Ancient Hebrew, rewrtite the text to read "Ipen expance' since such a concept was unutterabel in the langage, one had ot have a definitive point. The Limitations ofthe hebrew language are ebign called out here, not the limitations fo the meanign of the text.}-Zarove

eugene c. chavez wrote:

God speaks metaphorically and/or literally; depending.

My response:

Depending on what? Is the sky a solid dome? No.

{The Bible doest say its a "Solid dome", only that its a dome. Likewise, as I explaiend before, and as I know you will ignore as I repeat it, just liek you ignore the ecclesiaasties point, the Hebrew language cannot express an open expance. its imposisble in that langage at that time. Simpely declarign it based upon limited researhc you did just to satisfy your desire yo attack the Bible is not suffecient for us to beelive it when we know better.}-Zarove

OK, so we can't read "raqiya" (firmament) literally.

{You can, but only if you understand that it is the best word to use ebven with modern understanding if we where still speakig Ancient Hebrew. Again, the toruble is that the langiage cannot express an infinite expance. Yiu asusme it can express an infinite expance an chose to use the word dome because they thought a dome was over the Earth . Really though you just prefer to beelive they though a dome covedred the Earth so you can use his as an excuse and help tear intot the Bibel with ito sate semperverse desire on your end to destory.}-Zarove

We must read it metaphorically.

{See above...}-Zarove

But what is the metaphor?

{Its not a metaphore in this instance. However, its also not proof that the Hebrews where geocentirsts, nor that they beleived the sky to be a solid dome. If you bothered to undersand the language, you woudl relaise that they cannot express an infinite expalnce. And do fgive me the beenefit of a doubt here...}-Zarove

What is it being compared to? To a solid dome. Why?

{Because they cannot express the concept properly int he Hebrew language, and had to use a closed definitive. liekwise, no where in eh Hebrew fdes the word mean "Solid dome", merley dome, or firmament. t doest have to be solid...

But I digress, sicne I knwo you are to ignore htis and continue wth yout "Evidence" regardless...}-Zarove

So that it can hold up the rainwater, that's why. This isn't metaphor. This is science, Bible style.

{No, its linguistics, in Ancient Hebrew, with imported ideas form you.

Again, no where does the Bibemake full reference ott is dome as a solid item that holds up wated in ageocentirc world, this worldvri is imposed on the ancient peopel by you, because you want to us it to discredit the Bible an the peopel who composed it.

However, if you had done as I did, and studied the langage for thtee years of your life, then you woudl relaise that this word is the only word that can be used ( Forgive me for not repeatign it but I mispell...) There is no Hebrew way to expfress an infintie expance, so they use the next best analouge. Its not that they beelived the sky wa a solid dome, but that they coud not express the concept in any other way.

Again, I know, you will ignroe all i just typed, so why bother? }- Zarove

ZAROVE wrote:

The Catholic churhc didnt out Galilio on inquesition for his teahcign yhat the earht mov around the sun. ( Indeed, the Bible doesnt say the earht is the centre of the Universe, I mentioend this in another thread...) Inteas, they put him under inqiesition for defying a paupal aorder. defiance of papal authority, not hios sicnetific thdeories, caused him to be subjec tto hos "Dire" punishment.

My response:

The order that Galileo defied was an order to stop promoting heliocentricism as a fact rather than as a hypothesis that served as a useful tool for astronomers:

{ Which was, in fact, a wise desision. The toruble is that you are lookign at it with what we know now, and not what they knew then.

You see, they had no way of proving that Gallilio was correct, and had no way to test his theory. This means that, sicne the hcurhc was sponcerign him, if he taught it as a fact and was alter proven incorrect, this woudl Damage the Curhces credibility. It may be hard for you to understand this since you knwo that he was ( Sort of) right, but they had no way of knowugn it.

Askign him to teahc an unproven proposition as an unproven proposition is not cruel and ununual a requeast, it is, in fact, the best possible move until they coidl prove it otherwise.

Hindsihgt may be 20/20, but the men of that age coudl not use our hidnsihgt, and had to use the bes tthey had.

This said, the real issue was over his mockery of the Pope, who was his Patron, and not over his theories...

That, Simplicioo, is the sum of the matter thst you ignore.}-Zarove

"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion...and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning...contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture...

{I also note that the tribunal is not hsoever nfalalble, onlhy anecumenical decree is. Likewie, Gallilio, as noted, was relaly placed under house arrest ( A ligh sentnece by the way) for defyign the Pope, it was a political gesture... also igorign this fact shows toyr inability to reason. Likewise you cut a lot out...}-Zarove

{Lets take a look atthe full document shall we?}-Zarove

"The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

"The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

"Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture.

"We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture." (Condemnation of Galileo, June 22, 1633)

Gallilio wasnt even teahign soemthign new!

That's not my point. My point is that what he was teaching conflicts with the Bible.

{ At leats your understanding of the Bible. You have yet to show a clear verse that references Geocetistm. Yes, I knwo, ecclesiasties 1:5 is clealry geocentirc and Im bein a dilusional fool by rejecting it since it only refers to sunrise and sunset... heaven forbid I be right... but even most Geocentists dot use Ecc 1:5... can you show any legit verse?}-Zarove

The tye of book you want the Bibel to be didnt even exist till the 19th century.

That's not true.

{Yes, it is...}-Zarove

My motive for re-writing Genesis was to show you that I am not being unreasonable.

{Yes you are, not to meniton arrogant and pompous. And your motive for rewritign Genesis 1 was to show yourself superiot to the sciitptuees. Heck, you even went so far as to dsay God needed an editor. You simpley will to attack the scriptures and us, and elevate yourself and your own conceit, not to learn or understand...}-Zarove

Yiur re-write is nothign btu an arrogant sham, base dupon your own cinceited need to feel popmous and superuot yourself. Such is the way of fools.

???????????? I don't get it.

{You rewrote this for the sole end of attakcign the Bibel and showign religion to be a fools game, and to fuel your own egotism and desire for conceited glory. You arent here to listen and learn, but to pontificate and declare.Those who refuse to listen are automaticlaly fools.}-Zarove

...you presume to have the ability to edit Gods work to make it beter by ommiting parts so you can feel superior tot he Biblical authors and make yourself feel smug.

Who says that it's God's work? You?

{I beelive you did when you said " God coudl have used an editor"... and the odd hting here is you say its not Gods word as if thats a fact and now you compalin when we do thr same, and it s our sandbox your playing in...}-Zarove

I'm trying to show you why it CANNOT be God's work but you refuse to give me a fair hearing.

{We are giving you a fair hearing. The toruble is all you have doen is parrot old claims that we have heard before, and make perjorative statements that dot mesh with reality.

Like wen you cliamed that only by igorugn the Bibel have we ever progressed. aain, I wll remind you of Sir Issac Newton and hs Biblical work, which was the inspiration for hissicnece.

And others,which I aofrementioend.

You did not studt the Bible, Hisotry, or sicnece. All you appear to have doen is go online and pehaps buy soem books or magazines by skeptics that poitn to contradictiosn, errors and absurdities int eh Bibel, cmpiled a stokcpile of arugents, and use them, under the presumption that we nieve and foolish Christains have never heard htem before , and if we answer them you think that we ar emerle ustyfying the Bible and not rlelay thinking.

Again i direct your attention to ecc 1:5. You say its clealry the work of a Geocentirst. I say that its Phenomenological language that cannot be used as proof of anyhting at all, as it only refers to sunrise and sunset. You isnsit that Im worng without relaly stating why Imn wirng, smpely o maintian your own proof.

This sint a dalouge you want, you want us to bow don and agree, and become angry and upset when we present objections, and refuse ot even for the sake of argumen accept our stateents.

You dotn want a fair hearign, you want the power to make bindign decrees whihc we all follow, and make yourself a victim hen we dnt play your game.}-Zarove

Lesley wrote:

Goodness..just listen to yourself.. "I demand".."MY re-write".."I think"..

My response:

Listen to ME?!?!?! What about ZAROVE??? You should admonish him for the relentless insults he hurls at me.

{I havent relentlessly insulted you, I have, however, tried to get you to be reasonable and abandon your hostiel tone.}-Zarove

the "tone" here is one of real sadness that you do not understand.

If this is sadness I'd hate to see what you guys are like when you get angry!

{Im pretty placid most of the itme, actually...}-Zarove

I'm praying that someday your focus will turn from yourself and towards God.

My focus is towards truth.

{No its not. If you where seekign truth you woudl listen and learn, as well as exchange. All you do here is make a claim, and when reuted continue withthe claim.

Once again i remind you of ecclesiasties 1:5. You continue to say that the only logical wya wiht a plain reading to read this verse is to assume Geocntiism. However, any idiot can tell you that its referign to sunruse and sunset, and is not nessisasrily proof of geocentirsm. Indeed the entire chapter sint about the stars, and its nto bad astronomy to poiunt ou that the sun will rise and set and rise again. Only your desparate clinging to this verse renders it of effect. you refuse to understand the objection made agaisn tthe use of tis Verse, and ocntinue to insiste I am wrong.

Truth is not to be discovered by looking at onlne skeptic websites and compilign a list of errors in th Bible without so much as htinking. it takes tears of stidy, disipline, and attnedance to knwoeldge, which you lakc. You disregard the proccess of findign te turht in favour of supporting a position you alreayd have. you have descided hte Bible is a book of myth and fabl and flled with error and that only by ignorign it do we advnace asa culture, and hten seek argumens to support htis prposition. That is not seekign truth, but seekign validaiton for a conclusion you had before you began your work.}-Zarove

As for praying, may I suggest that you take up a more productive pastime?

{Prayer is prodictive. Indeed, clinical studied have shown that peopel who are prayed for heal faster in Hospitals. Likewise, peopel who pray regularly have better mental and physical health, and mroe contented in work and home life, and are generlaly less suseptable to propogsanda, depression, and ill adviced desisions.

As a seeker of truth so called, can you not at leats look at these studies?}-Zarove

Steve wrote:

...even though the Church condemned many heresies, it never condemned heliocentrism.

My response:

Oh yes it did. Perhaps not in a formal ex cathedra manner, making it a part of dogma. But it did condemn it. Just read the Church's condemnation of Galileo that I posted above.

{Which was a tirbunal decision, made for political reasons... and you edited out oarts of it...}-Zarove

And why did the Church condemn heliocentricism? Because it conflicted with Scripture, that's why.

{At least in or partioal list of the charges, and in one tirbuniary cercumstance. it also reccomened , in one tribunal, to strp women naked and ask them lurid queatsiosn to find wtches. The odcumet was called "The witches Hammer", by Kramer. However, after its publication it was condmened by the Hcurhc, yet is stil used by critcs such asurself. A tribunal sint infallable. }-Zarove

And that's my point. The Bible is wrong, wrong, wrong.

{ This based upon your weak undersanding... heck you where wrong, wrong, wrong about ecc 1:5. Yet you insist on using it. because you insist that the Bible is geocentirc and this verse proves it. becaue you have decided the Bibel is wrong, wrogn , wrong, and all your proof that its worng, wrong, wrong, is right, right, right..

Child, know ye not the truth?

The Bible sint wroing, you are, and I know since I have doen somethign you havent, even thguh Im a mindless drone, a christain, I have read and sudied and compiled a vast body of knoledge. You, on the other hand, determiend the Bible was wrong,wrogn, wong, beffore you began your queast, and nto seek only to confirm what you already know, thus care little for truth or reasn, only for pomulgatign your own ideas as though they are infallable decrees in there own right.}- Zarove

And 200 years before Galileo, the German philosopher- priest Nicholas of Cusa (Niklaus Kues) taught that the earth moves through space, and even to some extent anticipated Einstein’s theory of relativity! The Church then made him a bishop and a Cardinal, despite the objections of the civil authorities.

I am not trying to show that the Catholic Church is hostile to science.

{Yes, you are. Why else do you insist onmakign such attakcs?}-Zarove

I am simply trying to show that science has proved that the Bible is wrong.

{Yet, all you have displayed is your willignness to be dishoienst. with ecc 1:5 it refers tot he sunrise and sunset. You claim this proves Geocentirsm because you say everyoen then was a Geocentist. in short, you use circular reaosning. you kno the verse orives geocentirsm because the peope then where geoentists, and you knwo he wa ageocentsict by what he write...

You refuse to even accept the possibility that Im rght and that a reference ot the sun risign, setting, and risign aain, and this goign on and on, and how it related tot he meanignlessness of life, may not be the best possible proof of Geocentissm, and insetad insist that Im dsludign myself formt he turht and the lain reading. ( When indeed min is the plain reading and your stretches the verse beyond its origional intent to fut a mould you alreayd had for it.)

And therin lies the problem. You are tryign to prove the Bible is wrong,wrong,wrong.

Yiu arnet tryign to udnrsand the Bible. You arent tryign to understand sicnece. You arent trying to do anyhting othe than support your own poposition. You began withthe premise that the Bible was worng, then procceeded to look for evidence tha so cnfirmed this. You have found said evidnece,a nd expect us to be convenced of it, to bolster yourself. However, when shown the weakness of this evidnec ein cross examination, you instead become angry, hostile, and agresive toward us and inssit that we accept the evidnece as you beelive it and hwo you thin it means, and reject all of our backgrounds. mabny of us have degrees in proffesisonal fedss, and have stidies long and ard, and are far more qualified than you to examine these matters, and we have all apparetnly more on our minds than merley repeatign Dgmas we ar eotlkd to beelive, yett all you do is parrot skeptical claism we have heard before, and expect us to be shocked.

TReally, why not set aside this mad queats to disporve the Bible and try acutlsly leanrign soemthing?

If you are a seeker of truth, then try to findit, rather than supportign conclusions you already made. How tenuous your conlcusion must be if this is all you can do to prop it up...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 13, 2004.