To answer the first question:
1.In Genesis, God creates the Earth before he creates the stars, sun and moon; however, we know that the oldest objects in the universe are closer to the rim. there are many stars between the earth and the rim of the universe, so how can it be that the earth is older?
The BELIEF that objects that are closer to the "rim" of the universe stems from the ASSUMPTION that the Big Bang model of the Universe is true. But the Bible and the Big Bang do not correspond in any way. They are opposites. This question is a bit like asking "The bible says that God made man out of dust in less than a day but evolutionists say we elvolved from apelike ancestors. So how can God have created man as the Bible says?" Either you accept the Biblical model of creation, the evolutionary Big Bang model, or some other form of creation. But if you ASSUME the secularist theory to be correct, of course the Bible isnt going to make logical sense because it teaches something diametrically opposed.
2. Chapter 6 verse 4 of Genesis talks about their being giants “in those days.” Well, where are the fossils?
This one is quite simple. Fossils only form under special conditions. And while those special conditions were abundant during the flood, not everything that is killed by a flood gets buried in sediment and fossilized. Many creatures would be floating on the surface of the water (especially creatures such as human who can readily scramble up to the roof of the house of up a tree or hill, and cling to logs and floating wreckage) and rot and be eaten by scavengers. Other creatures would have been destroyed by volcanic eruptions, or swalloed by earthquakes, etc. On top of that, the fossils would have to have survived the thousands of years of geological history since that time. Human fossils in general are rare. Let alone human fossils of a particular type that may have been a small population for all we know. And one more point, nobody believes that all the fossils have been discovered yet. New discoveries are made all the time, such as the "Hobbits" of indonesia.
You can ask the same question about the Coelocanth. Evolutionists taught that it became extinct in the time of the dinosaurs because it doesnt appear in any strata "younger" than the layers that suposedly were laid down in the "time of the dinosaurs." But the Coelocanth is alive and well today. So, I ask, where are all the Coelocanth fossils up to the present time? Just because a fossil isnt found or even left behind, doesnt mean a creature didnt exist. Also,
For point 1, the real problem is that Genesis says day and night were created before the sun. That's an impossibility since day and night are caused by the rotation of the earth reletive to the sun.
This is not a real problem at all. You don't need the sun to have day and night. You need light and darkness. And quite clearly the Bible teaches there was light and darkness, and that God separated the light from the darkness, and called the light DAY and the darkness NIGHT. That is when the cycle of night, day, night, day began. The Sun and Moon to not MAKE night and day, they "govern it", as Genesis says. Before the sun, God used a temporary source of light for the cycle.
They were "great men" not "giants" except in a metaphorical sense.
This is not necessarily the case as the exact meaning of that part of the text isn't clear. They may very well have been giants. Some commentators say it is possible that these nephilim are the source of myths about demi-gods such as the titans of Greek mythology.
In any case, if Genesis were true there would be no fossils, since the earth would only by 6000 years old and never had the geological conditions to support fossilization. So we wouldn't expect fossils of these giants if there existed.
This is a strange statement that stems only from the assumed belief that fossils take a long time to form. And this is not the case at all. Fossils NEED to form fairly rapidly or else the remains of a creature decay or are torn apart by scavengers, erosion, etc. The "geological conditions" were present in the flood because you have large amounts of water covering vast areas with sediments, which preserve and mineralise the things it buries.
Why would the Earth only be 6000 years old, according to Genesis? I have heard genealogical arguments to this effect but I don’t quite buy them. When recording their genealogy ancient peoples often listed only important descendents, or those the genealogist thinks are important enough to list.
While it is true that ancient genealogies sometimes ommitted less important figures, this argument cannot apply to the genealogies is genesis for a simple reason. If you read the genealogies in Genesis it doesn't simply say "Brian begat John, John began Steve, etc." It clearly says: "...the days of Adam were eight hundred years and he had sons and daughter. So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and has sons and daughters. So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died." And so on throughout. There is no room to say that Enosh was the grandson or a great descendant of Seth because it clearly tells us how old Seth was when Enosh was born, how long he lived afterward, etc. So yes, you CAN add up the time from Adam to Jesus. And it's not hard to add up the time from Jesus till now. So you get a date of about 6,000 years by the geneaologies of Genesis.
It's wise of you not to buy the biblical geneologies. But if you don't accept Genesis as a literal history of the earth, why be a creationist?
Please explain the wisdom of rejecting the biblical genealogies.
But even if you reject that date for the origin of earth, the bible contains two other main events, the flood (origin of current geological features) and the Babel story (origin of languages) that are also of very recent dates, and equally falsified by science.
Please demonstrate where science has falsified the flood, the creation, or the tower of Babel. It is not by merely not believing in something that it becomes false.
The point is that genesis was written in the Bronze Age by persons with a Bronze-Age understanding. It is completely wrong in terms of astrophysics, geology, biology, etc etc.
This is absolutely untrue. The Bible has been demonstrated to be extremely reliable in all the areas of science that it touches upon. If you have any Biblical quotations relating to biology, geology, astrophysics and the like that have been demonstrated to be false, please share.
Quote:
2. Chapter 6 verse 4 of Genesis talks about their being giants “in those days.” Well, where are the fossils?
Could be that there were none that fossilized. Fossilization is a rather rare event, and if these giants were not too numerous, there may be no fossils.
Of course, the other possibility is that not only the fossils, but the giants themselves never existed.
Quote:
micatala Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:12 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
2. Chapter 6 verse 4 of Genesis talks about their being giants “in those days.” Well, where are the fossils?
Could be that there were none that fossilized. Fossilization is a rather rare event, and if these giants were not too numerous, there may be no fossils.
Of course, the other possibility is that not only the fossils, but the giants themselves never existed.
juliod Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:39 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Why would the Earth only be 6000 years old, according to Genesis? I have heard genealogical arguments to this effect but I don’t quite buy them.
It's wise of you not to buy the biblical geneologies. But if you don't accept Genesis as a literal history of the earth, why be a creationist?
The date of Creation at 4004 BC was originally arrived at by Bishop Usshar, and it has never been improved upon. Most serious creationists are YECs (Young Earth Creationists). Even if they don't use the data 4004 BC, they still believe in an earth about 6000 years old.
But even if you reject that date for the origin of earth, the bible contains two other main events, the flood (origin of current geological features) and the Babel story (origin of languages) that are also of very recent dates, and equally falsified by science.
Quote:
The word Nephilim means bully, tyrant or giant. Some bibles use the giant translation directly (such as mine NKJ.)
The NIV and NASB (i.e. real bibles ) treat the word as the proper name of a group. Sort of like the word "Gothic" which means ugly, but was the name of a group that latin-speakers were familiar with. sicne modern translations don't hold that the Nephalim were a non-human hominid species, I won't hold it against christians.
Quote:
Why don’t you buy the closer to the rim theory?
It's not valid in terms of astrophysics.
a) I don't think we know where the "rim" is.
b) There is no "age" relation to objects at this "rim".
I think your brother is confused by the fact that objects at the edge of where we can see with current telescopes released the light we see long long ago. The light is only reaching us after a journey of 10 or more billion years. The object, if it still exists, would be at least that old. But that doesn't mean it is older than other object nearer to us. We are just seeing light that has travelled less time (say 5000 years) to reach us.
The point is that genesis was written in the Bronze Age by persons with a Bronze-Age understanding. It is completely wrong in terms of astrophysics, geology, biology, etc etc.
DanZ
Malachi Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 6:48 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would the Earth only be 6000 years old, according to Genesis? I have heard genealogical arguments to this effect but I don’t quite buy them. When recording their genealogy ancient peoples often listed only important descendents, or those the genealogist thinks are important enough to list.
The word Nephilim means bully, tyrant or giant. Some bibles use the giant translation directly (such as mine NKJ.)
Why don’t you buy the closer to the rim theory?
Thanks for your thoughts.
juliod Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 6:20 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For point 1, the real problem is that Genesis says day and night were created before the sun. That's an impossibility since day and night are caused by the rotation of the earth reletive to the sun.
I don't think the "older elements closer to the rim" argument is valid.
As for point 2, modern versions give Genesis 6:4 as:
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
They were "great men" not "giants" except in a metaphorical sense.
In any case, if Genesis were true there would be no fossils, since the earth would only by 6000 years old and never had the geological conditions to support fossilization. So we wouldn't expect fossils of these giants if there existed.
Malachi Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:46 pm Post subject: Errors in Genisis?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings good debaters. I have been watching this sight for some time now and though I do not consider myself much of a debater, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading through your arguments. The reason I have chosen to post now is because I have begun a friendly debate through correspondence with my brother who is currently incarcerated and would like to present a few of his arguments in order to get some feedback from both other Christians and atheists. This way I can sharpen my own debating skills and get an opportunity to see the arguments from many angles. Currently, he has sent me a critical essay on the bible and though I could not possibly post all of his arguments on one thread, I would like to present a few.
1.In Genesis, God creates the Earth before he creates the stars, sun and moon; however, we know that the oldest objects in the universe are closer to the rim. there are many stars between the earth and the rim of the universe, so how can it be that the earth is older?
2. Chapter 6 verse 4 of Genesis talks about their being giants “in those days.” Well, where are the fossils?
3. Well, actually points one and two should be enough to keep us busy for awhile. If this goes well I’ll post more latter.
Any thoughts?
) treat the word as the proper name of a group. Sort of like the word "Gothic" which means ugly, but was the name of a group that latin-speakers were familiar with. sicne modern translations don't hold that the Nephalim were a non-human hominid species, I won't hold it against christians.
