Scientifically Impossible

[YEC]

SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

Often we read where Christians deny the possibility of the events pertaining to the six day creation or the world wide flood of Noah. The major reason for this denial is due to claims that modern science has disproved the accounts presented within Genesis. Genesis is no longer scientifically feasible.
Despite the many scientific evidences pointing to a recent creation and a world wide flood as told in the accounts of Genesis there is still this nagging need to deny the accounts of Genesis yet believe the other scientifically impossible portions of the bible.
For those who choose not to believe in the accounts of Genesis an allegory must be drawn up to explain the verses.

Below are 9 scientifically impossible events that the bible presents as truth. Why is it that some of the events get dismissed and allegorized by “Theistic Evolutionist” while some of the other events are held on to and presented as the literal truth by these same “Theistic Evolutionist” despite their obvious scientific impossibilities?
If the answer is “miracles” then why can’t all the scientific impossibilities be miracles?
Why is it that the events such as a recent creation and the flood which actually have scientific data to support them become allegories while the others with no scientific support are still up held as fact?

• The creation of the world in six days did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  REF: Genesis 1-2

• The creation of Adam from the dust then Eve from his side did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  REF: Genesis 2:7 , 2:22

• The world wide flood of Noah did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  REF: Genesis 6-8

• Men living to long ages did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  REF: Genesis 9:29

• Moses staff turning into snakes did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  REF: Exodus 4:3

• The sun standing still for Joshua did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  REF: Joshua 10:13

• Peter walking on the water with Jesus did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  REF: Matthew 14:29

• Jesus turning water into wine did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  REF: John 2: 1-11

• Jesus Christ rising from the dead did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  REF: John 20,21

Perhaps it’s best to allegorize the resurrection of Jesus Christ along with the six day creation....after all, both are scientifically impossible. Dead dead people can’t rise from the grave on day 3.
That would be the natural “scientific” interpretational tendencies. Allegorize.

The above questions make me think of the following question:
Why is it the Theistic Evolutionist can believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ which is scientifically impossible, yet deny the six day creation performed by Jesus Christ as written in the accounts of Genesis...which is also considered as scientifically impossible?

I believe the bottom line of biblical translation for the Theistic Evolutionist is as follows:
If it relates to the flood or creation, it's an allegory.
Of course there is a danger in presenting this kind of a watered down scientifically impossible pick and choose your miracle bible .....salvation may be easly lost.

[harvey1]

So, whoever is getting you to believe that scripture is referring to Adam's rib, I think, is pulling the wool over your eyes.

Er, well, as an unbeliever, I'd like to think no one is deceiving me as to what the translation of tsela should be, and that I can arrive at the conclusion by independent reasoning. My reasoning perhaps has something to do with my opinion that the bible is not divinely inspired, and that a primitive society could not know that cells placed under a microscope could possibly look like many interconnected chambers.

I'm not saying biological cells is the correct translation. However, it is just as valid as any body part. The word 'tsela' simply does not specify. It has the connotation of a 'chamber', so in that sense, a biological cell is closer to the general usage of the word than 'rib'.

[YEC]

When you sin, don't you die spiratually?

Are you saying this was not the case for Adam?

[YEC]

harvey1,
What you have to say is interesting...but...one of the major problems I have with your interpretations of Genesis is that you seem to change the natural reading of the accounts.

It almost seems as your interpretation requires some sort of theology degree to understand your alternative meaning of the book of Genesis.

The simple reading is that Adam was formed from the dust...not some read betwen the lines evolution scenario.

The simple reading is that Eve was formed from Adams rib and not a biological cell.

The simple reading is that Jesus created in six days...not six ages.

It's so simple I have to ask the question again, if Jesus used evolution to create...why not simply say so?

Why not say He created man from the animals?
Why the creation of Eve after Adam? If Jesus used evolution why not have them evolve together rather than some creation order?

Here's another question..on second thought I'll start a new thread. It'll be about the creation of Angels.

[harvey1]

harvey1, What you have to say is interesting...but...one of the major problems I have with your interpretations of Genesis is that you seem to change the natural reading of the accounts. It almost seems as your interpretation requires some sort of theology degree to understand your alternative meaning of the book of Genesis. The simple reading is that Adam was formed from the dust...not some read betwen the lines evolution scenario. The simple reading is that Eve was formed from Adams rib and not a biological cell. The simple reading is that Jesus created in six days...not six ages. It's so simple I have to ask the question again, if Jesus used evolution to create...why not simply say so?
Why not say He created man from the animals? Why the creation of Eve after Adam? If Jesus used evolution why not have them evolve together rather than some creation order? Here's another question..on second thought I'll start a new thread. It'll be about the creation of Angels.

Why doesn't Judaism believe Jesus is the Messiah? The chief corner stone must be rejected. As a minor instance of this biblical principle, the theory of evolution, rejected by creationists, is one of the chief corner stones to understand God's creation. The positive implications of evolutionary theory for Christianity haven't really been scratched.

[harvey1]

The simple reading is that Eve was formed from Adams rib and not a biological cell.

Here's an article written by A.E. Koch that I found which supports my argument:

http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Librar ... nKnoch.htm

I don't agree with Koch's interpretation that a male lacks something as a result, but I agree that 'hollow cell' is the appropriate translation, and I agree that unisex adamah is implied in the text. It would seem that God knows a thing or two about a thing or two.