Old Earth/Young Earth

[JackH]

Furthermore, the Bible isn't nearly as accurate as apologists argue. But before we go into how accurate it is or isn't, how can rely on something that's so internally inconsistent?

http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf
BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

I'll admit, the inconsistencies listed may not actually be inconsistencies and they may have a valid explanation - each and every single one of them. But if this is the case, then I'm either ignorant of those explanations or haven't been persuaded by the explanations. Clearly, my skepticism isn't baseless. Wrong? Possibly, but it's not based off nothing.

I'd be happy to respond to any of these so-called inconsistencies, provided that they are somewhat related to the title of this thread, which is "Old Earth/Young Earth."

No. 127 in your first link is: "When did the earth dry after the flood? Genesis 8:13, 8:14."

Not an inconsistency or contradiction at all. Makes sense to me.

Here are the verses, and the ones that immediately follow:

[SUP][SIZE=-1]8:13[/SIZE][/SUP]And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry. [SUP][SIZE=-1]8:14[/SIZE][/SUP]And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
[SUP][SIZE=-1]8:15[/SIZE][/SUP]And God spake unto Noah, saying,[SUP][SIZE=-1]8:16[/SIZE][/SUP]Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee. [SUP][SIZE=-1]8:17[/SIZE][/SUP]Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth. [SUP][SIZE=-1]8:18[/SIZE][/SUP]And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him: [SUP][SIZE=-1]8:19[/SIZE][/SUP]Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.

It seems to me that it is rather obvious that in verse 13 the water had receded from the surface of the earth, but Noah waited until it dried more before setting foot on land.

Now, a YEC would likely tell you that Noah did so because he was fearful that the huge dinosaurs on the ark would sink into the soft ground and be injured or die. That would have foiled his plan to ride T. rex in the Dinosaur Rodeo.

Incidentally, Bishop Ushher said the date of verse 13 was Friday, October 23, 1657 BC. His chronology is where the YECs get the "fact" that the earth is 6,000 years old. In fact, his dates were published in the KJV for several hundred years until they were removed due to lack of credibility.

 

[Calminian]

It's not based on faith. It's based on the definition of science.

No, you haven't done the research yourself. You're basing your view on testimony that you've gathered and believe is reliable. I do that same thing.

Actually, most reliable documents are written during the life of the person they describe.

Which is why it's strange you're reluctant to trust the Bible. It is a collection of first-hand accounts. Even the book of Genesis cites the "book of Adam" (Gen. 5:1) and we now have good textual evidence based on archeology that it is a collection of accounts written by contemporaries of the events Moses writes of. Google the tablet theory for more information on this. But the Bible is all about contemporary witnesses. This is why Simon Greenleaf was so impressed with the testimonies of the Gospel writers. He determined they were good reliable witnesses.

And did you by any chance read the short article I linked by Ron Rhodes? You'll never look at the Bible the same again after reading that. The Bible stands alone having many times the manuscript evidence of other ancient documents. Challenge: Name one ancient document that has more manuscript evidence than the Bible does. It's a simple challenge.

Furthermore, the Bible isn't nearly as accurate as apologists argue. But before we go into how accurate it is or isn't, how can rely on something that's so internally inconsistent?

Well I wouldn't defend it if it was inconsistent. Here's a challenge. Name your top 3 inconsistencies. Not just any 3, your top 3 that stumble you the most.

Remember too, skeptics are also pushing their world view. They can be extremely biased, so don't neglect to fact check them.

I'm not relying on faith. You are. And it's evident that you're projecting your faith onto me. I challenge the validity of faith, so your response is to claim I have faith as a means of voiding my argument against you. Please, stop projecting. And stop saying I have faith when I don't. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Sorry, I can't do this. I have to be honest with you. Before I was a christian I was a man of faith, I just didn't realize it. I believe this with all my heart about everyone. Everyone has faith in something.

Imagine if I kept saying, "You believe in God because you're insecure."...

Of course I would deny it, but that denial in and of itself won't disprove your assertion. The only thing I can do is explain why I think you should not believe this. I don't believe your assertion that I'm basing my beliefs on faith, while you're basing them on facts. I'm sorry, ultimately, we have both chosen whom we are going to trust. We are both men of faith.

 

[Bowman]

The issue is not counting up years, but the theology of death and suffering, which is a key aspect to the gospel.

Animals ate animals before humans were created according to scripture...

 

[Percepi]

No, you haven't done the research yourself. You're basing your view on testimony that you've gathered and believe is reliable. I do that same thing.

Call it what you want, but the "testimony" I refer to is related to actual tests that have been done, peer reviewed, and examined with utmost scrutiny. And even though it's technically possible that every single published article verifying evolution could technically be made up, there's plenty of reason to believe it. Unlike the Bible, these articles are current and published carefully so we can track the scientists involved with the studies. Other scientists can test these studies. We can review numerous versions of similar tests and see how they are similar and how they differ and we can even understand why in many cases. It is possible that all of this is just a fabrication, but it's also possible that the Ebola crisis going on right now is also a fabrication since I haven't actually witnessed anyone with Ebola, or that we don't actually rely on satellites in space since I haven't seen one in space personally.

It is always possible that I've been mislead, but this doesn't mean everything is equally probable of being false. There's a far greater chance that the Ebola crisis is actually going on compared to the chance of Bigfoot being real. We rely on "testimony" for both, but surely you can understand why the "testimony" of the Ebola crisis is far more reasonable to believe, no?

Which is why it's strange you're reluctant to trust the Bible. It is a collection of first-hand accounts

I highly doubt you trust the Book of Mormon to be an actual, honest, first hand account of God's power. If you believe the Book of Mormon to be false, then I imagine your feelings towards it mirror my feelings towards the Bible when it comes to the validity of so called "first hand accounts".

This is why Simon Greenleaf was so impressed with the testimonies of the Gospel writers. He determined they were good reliable witnesses.

Is he the person who's book you recommended me? The man who was supposedly an atheist who became a Christian while trying to debunk the Bible? If so, can you find a PDF and the page number of where you talks about his conversion?

And did you by any chance read the short article I linked by Ron Rhodes? You'll never look at the Bible the same again after reading that. The Bible stands alone having many times the manuscript evidence of other ancient documents. Challenge: Name one ancient document that has more manuscript evidence than the Bible does. It's a simple challenge.

I looked at the article but the author didn't actually provide any examples. It also wouldn't be a surprise finding manuscripts that copied each other. I can't name another ancient document that has more manuscript evidence for two reasons. One, I haven't studied other religious texts and their origins. Two, I'm not convinced that there is evidence proving the Bible to be as cohesive as the author suggests since there are many inconsistencies in the Bible such as the birthplace of Jesus and the accounts of how Judas died - which I can delve into bit more tomorrow.

Well I wouldn't defend it if it was inconsistent. Here's a challenge. Name your top 3 inconsistencies. Not just any 3, your top 3 that stumble you the most.

Most of the inconsistencies that bother me have to do with God's nature more-so than the accuracy of events, two of which I have mentioned briefly above.

In Genesis, God goes from being pleased with his creation to displeased - even though this contradicts his nature of omniscience. How could God be displeased if he already knew what was going to happen, especially if you believe he planned each event to happen?

You have verses where God talks of being jealous and vengeful, which contradicts love, forgiveness, and compassion. (I understand that God's emotions are supposed to be a different level from ours so that they can co-exist - but I see them as contradicts that can't possible co-exist unless you change the meaning behind these words, in which case the way we refer to God should also be changed)

We have examples in which God is claimed to have been seen, but then we have cases in which it's claimed God CAN NOT be seen. In the latter, it's never mentioned "unless God wants to be seen".

And if we want to get to other NT inconsistencies, as I said above, the details concerning the birth of Jesus is one large inconsistency as well as the death of Judas.

This is just a small sample of inconsistencies that I personally take issue with, but there are more.