Original Intent Of the Bible

Does anyone else out there believe, like me, that the Bible was never intended to be taken literally?
( I guess if you believe that God wrote part of the Bible then it MUST be intended to be taken literally....anyway...)
I'm not a Christian - I study molecular biology and evolutionary genetics - so, yes, you could say that I am biased.
Anyway, I think that the Bible is a collection of stories, teaching people about values and ideals....but nothing more. The lessons it teaches are valuble to millions of people around the world, but surely you can't seriously try and use it like a text book? Why even try?
I mean I've read Aesop's fable about the hare and the tortoise. I learnt that consistency often pays off. But I don't then believe that hares and tortoises can speak or that they could organise a race. I don't go and try to formulate scientific arguments in support of my hare and tortoise racing theory.
It was a story, written to convey a message about life to the reader and not a factual account of a real race.
I guess my point to creationists is - stop trying to mix science with religion and faith. They don't mix and never will. I don't do my research to disproove God. I couldn't if I tried I guess. But stop bombarding scientists with these accusations, pointless questions and stop misquoting scientists to further your cause. Let us do our research.

Christians used to think a lot like this a century ago, but archeology has shown that the Old testament was a lot more reliable than had been thought. This cannot be denied. There are many mainstream Biblical scholars who are otherwise quite liberal that will testify to this.Creationists have simply said - well, what about the flood? We really do feel that the flood opens up a much better understanding to the origin of the geolgical column. And similarly for genomes and evolution. You just think we're being naive but we're quite thorough and deadly serious. We don't overlook much at all even though we are in the minority.So when the Bible talks of something that most certainly would have changed the face of the globe we'll at least go and look for that! And boy did we get excited when we found it and began to understand how it got lost by the earlier generations of creationists.------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Christians used to think a lot like this a century ago, but archeology has shown that the Old testament was a lot more reliable than had been thought. This cannot be denied. There are many mainstream Biblical scholars who are otherwise quite liberal that will testify to this.[/QUOTE]

​

Links to specific archeological journal articles/information to back up this claim, please.

​

quote:

---

Creationists have simply said - well, what about the flood?

---

​

Um, no, that's not what Creationists have said.

​

Creationists have said, "The Flood happened because the Bible (as we interpret it) said it did, and we are going to pick and choose the evidence (that real scientists have collected) which seems to support what the Bible says and then ignore or try to discredit or distort any evidence which seems to disprove what the Bible (as we interpret it) says."

​

quote:

---

We really do feel that the flood opens up a much better understanding to the origin of the geolgical column.

---

​

Feeling like you are doing something and actually having accomplished that something are two very different things, I'm afraid.

​

quote:

---

And similarly for genomes and evolution. You just think we're being naive but we're quite thorough and deadly serious. We don't overlook much at all even though we are in the minority.

---

​

This is just funny. Most of what tries to pass for "science" on Creationist sites is really pretty bad. The logic is bad, the research methods are bad, and often the basic knowledge of the subject is limited. Or, they are just leaving things out and misquoting real scientists in order to deceive.

​

I can support these assertions, and I will provide many examples if you like.

​

quote:

---

So when the Bible talks of something that most certainly would have changed the face of the globe we'll at least go and look for that!

---

​

It was already looked for and rejected by Creationist Geologists 100 years ago. The difference is, those Creationists 100 years ago were intellectually honest and not politically-motivated.

​

[QUOTE]And boy did we get excited when we found it and began to understand how it got lost by the earlier generations of creationists.
[/b]

---

What you are suggesting is to utterly nullify several hundred years of research and invalidate the life's work of several hundred thousand (at least) scientists.You are living in a fantasy world if you think that Flood geology has any basis in reality.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

We'll just have to agree to disagree Schrafinator.

Firstly - I'm sorry that this topic isn't much about evolution so far. I'm not quite sure how I managed to post it in this section....but evolution is what I'm interested in....
I never assume all creationists to be naieve. I'm sure there are some quite well educated people among them.
One thing no creationist has ever been able to explain to me about the whole flood thing though is:
Why do some sedimentary layers contain footprints of animals?
If all sedimentary layers were laid down as the flood waters receeded how is it that we have hundreds of examples of dinosaur, homonid and bird trackways preserved in stone? I'm not just talking about ones that are on the surface at the moment - but ones like those recently discovered here in Australia, which are buried with later sedimentary layers on top of them. Were animals walking around on the bottom of the ocean in between layers being deposited by the flood? Did the flood waters drain, allowing the animals to walk on the mud, and then suddenly reappear to lay down the later layers? (This is all ignoring the fact to that each layer would have to have turned to stone before the next one was laid down). Any explanations?

^ PU, all non-naive models of the flood involve tectonic action as an instigator of the inundation of the continents with water from the oceans (we suspect the rain was condensing steam boiled t tectonic boundaries) as well as continental drift. Hence we're talking a lot of crustal movement up/down/horizontally. So we expect surges. The flood itself ocurred over 400 days (only the rain was for 40 days) and we wouldsuspect that retreat of waters took decades and that the current continental drift is an exponentially falling remnant of the initial catastrophically rapid drift.So we can easily accomodate temporary resettling on recently created flood plains for days to weeks.------------------
You are go for TLI

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ PU, all non-naive models of the flood involve tectonic action as an instigator of the inundation of the continents with water from the oceans (we suspect the rain was condensing steam boiled t tectonic boundaries) as well as continental drift. Hence we're talking a lot of crustal movement up/down/horizontally. So we expect surges. The flood itself ocurred over 400 days (only the rain was for 40 days) and we wouldsuspect that retreat of waters took decades and that the current continental drift is an exponentially falling remnant of the initial catastrophically rapid drift.

​

So we can easily accomodate temporary resettling on recently created flood plains for days to weeks.

​

---

JM: But of course, you evade the question of what defines pre, syn and post flood.CheersJoe Meert

I am collecting stuff on it Joe. I've now realized that my main souce on this is a CEN Tech artilce I have to search the house for! But I'll compare/contrast this with the web too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I am collecting stuff on it Joe. I've now realized that my main souce on this is a CEN Tech artilce I have to search the house for! But I'll compare/contrast this with the web too.

---

JM: Well, let me give you a heads up. TC has claimed that the flood took place and is recorded in Cambrian through Tertiary deposits. That would make precambrian strata 'pre-flood'. This (cambrian-tertiary) is an interesting period of time since we have very clear evidence for terrestrial desert deposits during this interval. If we assume this time line then we also have evidence that (a) dinosaurs were one of Gods chosen creatures (like Noah) since they were able to escape the flood waters in Utah. We also know that magnetic reversals happened prior to and following the flood deposits (and there are MANY reversals). We also have a lack of 'forests' in precambrian strata (heck even Cambrian and younger) that will serve as a source for all the vegetation mats and polystrate fossils that you so dearly love to discuss. So, if the Cambrian marks the onset of the flood, then where is all the precambrian evidence for the trees that would be washed away in the Cambrian?
how about the following exercise? Use the stratigraphic record (Cambrian-Tertiary) along the Atlantic margin and explain its formation (in detail) using the global flood model. IF you disagree with these time constraints for the flood, then explain the portions which you attribute to pre, syn and post flood events.CheersJoe Meert

You really need to have this discussion with an actual creationist geologist but here we go . . .I don't have problems with dinosaur kinds (there are about 30 Linnean familes as a guide I think) on the ark. Neiher do I have a problem about dinosaurs who missed out creating footprints etc in between surges. Perhaps I missed your dinosaur point.I don't have problems with accelerated radioisotopic decay, radiogenic heating, sea floor spreading and magentic reversals occuring as a build up to the flood and during the following years. We don't claim to know the profile of accelerated decay although we may ultimately be able to estimate it.We're not talking some pedestrian event here - we're talking about kilometres of water and constant flows (as the paleocurrents document). I would not at all expect any remnant of the pre-flood biotic world to be in its original position. The basement rocks obviously would remain and in some places we would get marine sediments on top of basement rocks and in other places terrestial sediments (as observed). But that's where I have to leave it to detailed creationist studies. Let's not forget that, even in the beautifully recorded Grand Canyon strata, there are missing 50 million years of strata which stretch credibility given the flat paraconformities. To say that these flat, hardly eroded unconformities (defn: interfaces between seperate beds with a break in deposition) document tens of millions of years of erosion is quite bizaree. In our model we expect to get such 'missing time' because sometimes we will get terrestial beds on pre-flood bed rock and sometimes marine beds.For any more detail you need to get Baumgardner et al here although I am continually reading more and more of their stuff.By the way, I'm quite happy to keep discussing our problems, but do you know I haven't been able find a book yet or good web link on the corresponding details of how the GC came to be from your point of view? Lots of talk of fluvial, eolian, deltaic etc but not much on, now here's hw we go the Devonian etc . . . Can you help with a findable ref or link? I can categroically state that the three books I read on 'Origin of Sedimentary Rocks' hardly covered this issue. I was coming to the conclusion that there is no semi-deterministic mainstream detailed model for how the GC came to be but I'm sure you'll come to my rescue.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We'll just have to agree to disagree Schrafinator.

---

Look, if you are not interested in providing evidence to support your position on a debate board, then I am a bit at a loss as to why you are here.Are you sure you have no respone at all to anything I have pointed out or asked? Gee, if not, that sure seems like a point or two for science. Your silence is deafening.So, what archaeological evidence supports anything other than the existence of certain cities mentioned in the Bible?? Please back up your claim with evidence or retract the claim.I have been wondering, TB, how you feel about the Creationist's mangling of the second law of thermodynamics, since you have a PhD in Physics? You say that Creationists are so thorough, but they have been getting the 2nd LoT so very wrong (in varying ways) for years and years.When they get the 2nd LoT so wrong, why do you have confidence in their scholarship in other fields?(This is one of those examples of bad Creationist 'science' which I said that I could provide)------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-21-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-21-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]You really need to have this discussion with an actual creationist geologist but here we go . . . [/QUOTE]JM: is there such a being?

quote:

---

I don't have problems with dinosaur kinds (there are about 30 Linnean familes as a guide I think) on the ark. Neiher do I have a problem about dinosaurs who missed out creating footprints etc in between surges. Perhaps I missed your dinosaur point.

---

JM:It's not that they missed out, it's a question of how they survived the flood. If they were in the ark, then they certainly made it to Utah in a hurry! Remember, we are talking about Cretaceous terrestrial deposits.. The only marine deposition in the area is below the footprints.

quote:

---

I don't have problems with accelerated radioisotopic decay, radiogenic heating, sea floor spreading and magentic reversals occuring as a build up to the flood and during the following years.

---

JM: Nor do you have any evidence for any of these things. I guess this is an excellent example of the adage "Ignorance is bliss"?

quote:

---

We don't claim to know the profile of accelerated decay although we may ultimately be able to estimate it.

---

JM: You don't even have evidence that it happened nor do you have a mechanism for it to happen!

quote:

---

We're not talking some pedestrian event here - we're talking about kilometres of water and constant flows (as the paleocurrents document).

---

JM: Which you misinterpreted! How do fragile things like bee hives, temrite mounds and crayfish burrows survive this 'non pedestrian' event? Where is the evidence for this flood?

quote:

---

I would not at all expect any remnant of the pre-flood biotic world to be in its original position.

---

JM: But quite clearly some of it is. For example, were stromatolites placed in bunches by the flood? Termite mounds? Bee hives? crayfish burrows?

quote:

---

The basement rocks obviously would remain and in some places we would get marine sediments on top of basement rocks and in other places terrestial sediments (as observed). But that's where I have to leave it to detailed creationist studies.

---

JM: THERE ARE NONE! No creationist HAS ever detailed the flood sequence. This is what I am trying to beat you over the head with. What rocks mark the onset, middle and end of the Noachian flood? Surely, something of this magnitude can be clearly described.

quote:

---

Let's not forget that, even in the beautifully recorded Grand Canyon strata, there are missing 50 million years of strata which stretch credibility given the flat paraconformities.

---

JM: Have YOU looked at the Grand Canyon sequence boundaries in detail? There are deep channels carved into the top of the Mauv.

quote:

---

To say that these flat, hardly eroded unconformities (defn: interfaces between seperate beds with a break in deposition) document tens of millions of years of erosion is quite bizaree.

---

JM: Have you looked at them in detail. Your image sounds rather cartoonish.

quote:

---

In our model we expect to get such 'missing time' because sometimes we will get terrestial beds on pre-flood bed rock and sometimes marine beds.

---

JM: Why? In fact, if the global flood covered the globe, you should be able to point to a sequence of globally correlated SOLELY marine strata.

quote:

---

For any more detail you need to get Baumgardner et al here although I am continually reading more and more of their stuff.

---

JM: Baumgardner is NOT a geologist nor has he written anything in the mainstream literature regarding the stratigraphic partioning of time in flood deposits. Interestingly, many of his mainstream papers are old earth (weird considering his public stance against old earth). Would YOU co-author a paper where the conclusions were so diametrically opposed to your real views?

quote:

---

By the way, I'm quite happy to keep discussing our problems, but do you know I haven't been able find a book yet or good web link on the corresponding details of how the GC came to be from your point of view? Lots of talk of fluvial, eolian, deltaic etc but not much on, now here's hw we go the Devonian etc . . . Can you help with a findable ref or link? I can categroically state that the three books I read on 'Origin of Sedimentary Rocks' hardly covered this issue. I was coming to the conclusion that there is no semi-deterministic mainstream detailed model for how the GC came to be but I'm sure you'll come to my rescue.

---

JM: For a "Phded" scientist, you sure have difficulty with literature searches!CheersJoe Meert

"Why do some sedimentary layers contain footprints of animals?"
--I was not aware that animals would be floating aimlessly in space during the event?"If all sedimentary layers were laid down as the flood waters receeded how is it that we have hundreds of examples of dinosaur, homonid and bird trackways preserved in stone?"
--See above, and Sediments werent layed down only as waters receeded."I'm not just talking about ones that are on the surface at the moment - but ones like those recently discovered here in Australia, which are buried with later sedimentary layers on top of them. Were animals walking around on the bottom of the ocean in between layers being deposited by the flood?"
--No, sediment deposited, they walked around, and then came another deposit as environmental conditions allowed in isolated or specific areas on the earth."Did the flood waters drain, allowing the animals to walk on the mud, and then suddenly reappear to lay down the later layers? (This is all ignoring the fact to that each layer would have to have turned to stone before the next one was laid down)."
--Each layer would not have had to turn to stone before the next were layed down, this is quite a misunderstanding. An imprint is all you need in a viscous sediment for the imprints to be preserved. No need for lithification prior the next deposit. This is analogous to raindrop, paleocurrents, mud cracks, etc.--The Global Flood arguments are a lot more than you will find on many of the anti-creationist sites.------------------

"So, what archaeological evidence supports anything other than the existence of certain cities mentioned in the Bible?? Please back up your claim with evidence or retract the claim."
--While I think archaeology is boring, I think that if your going to ask this question, possibly start with some specifics on what evidence you are looking for (an event?)."I have been wondering, TB, how you feel about the Creationist's mangling of the second law of thermodynamics, since you have a PhD in Physics? You say that Creationists are so thorough, but they have been getting the 2nd LoT so very wrong (in varying ways) for years and years.When they get the 2nd LoT so wrong, why do you have confidence in their scholarship in other fields?"
--This sounds more like Hovind, Walt Brown, Ron Wyatt, et al. I don't think thermodynamics was the best example.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
While I think archaeology is boring, I think that if your going to ask this question, possibly start with some specifics on what evidence you are looking for (an event?).

---

Archaeology is boring??!! I'm gobsmacked. Compared to geology? At least after hours of digging, archaeologists find things. "Ooo some rocks! Let's dig them up and find ... some more rocks!" Anyway, the point was that TB claimed "archeology has shown that the Old testament was a lot more reliable than had been thought." Schraf asked for some examples. There's not a lot of point in you coming back and saying what events do you want examples of - unless you expect there to be archaeological evidence for every event.Besides, one shouldn't read too much into the correlation of archaeology and the bible. Even if the bible is not seen as infallibly correct in all its details, one would still expect its major historical events to have some grounding in tribal history: a devastating flood, the destruction of cities by fire, the collpase of a whopping great ziggurat. Quite why such correlations would lead one to assume that the bible's accounts were accurate in all details, I can't imagine, or why one would extrapolate that the creation account is also true in its details.