Do you read the Bible?

[PrinceAli]

Ok, I am not going to go too much into all those previous conversations that should have been settled earlier. A lot of them have gone around in circles a few times and they'll eventually get lost in the shuffle.

Well all I can do is tell you that there's no hate there. If you insist that I am hateful nonetheless, I'll regrettably leave you to that opinion. The "drop it" was an olive branch. You did attack me. But if you don't want to drop it, then fine, we can go on yelling, calling names, and sticking our tongues out at one another.

Hopefully this time you will understand what I meant. I merely said it was a hateful teaching IMO, and you aren't really hateful unless of course you actively physically punish gays for who they are. I was simply saying my differing opinion on an issue taught in the Bible, I really didn't mean for that to be an "attack" on you directly.

Jesus spoke Aramaic. That was later recorded in Greek. In that sense, you could say it was translated from what they heard to what they wrote, but then, I don't believe God left it open to their own perceptions, it was He who chose the words that went down.

So was it also He who translated the Bible from Hebrew to Greek, (or Greek to Hebrew), and then to English, and then to all the languages of the world today?

Ah, I meant to mention that in my first post about Noah, but forgot. It distinguishes which kinds of animals came in 2s and which came in 7s. The differences in animal types is covered in Leviticus as well. There's a lot of Biblical numerology to be studied in that, too, but I don't know enough about it to get into it.

Hmmm, what's weird is that some insects need the whole pack to survive. They couldn't live with only 2 or 7 of their species.

You forget that back then, people lived for very, very long periods of time. They also had many, many, many, many children. Those children grew up and began to marry and have children at much younger ages than they do typically do now. Noah's family split up and traveled after the flood, so the population growth spread out across the globe quickly, as well. Also, I'm not totally sure, but it may be that this occured prior to what we now know as incest being banned, which would have increased the population as well.

I don't see how you can have that many babies have time to grow up, have babies of their own, and have them grow up....and then have enough people to build the Tower of Babel. Keep in mind, I think men were the only ones involved in building such structures, so that lowers the population (of working people) a lot already. But what is really funny is that you said earlier that the world is in a moral decline (prophesized by God) since the beginning. Is it possible that having 10 or more babies at the age of (what would probably have to be) 15 is more moral than we think?

No, though I'm sure I could find some. But then I didn't make a definitive claim, did I? I only said I would guess.

I really doubt there was ever a world-wide survey in which every single person was forced to respond to. So neither of us is right I guess, we only have our feelings that either most people think it is fake, or most people accept it as truth.

Frankly, I don't. As long as you need proof as the underlying basis to your faith, you won't really achieve faith. But if you do want to know what sorts of evidence has been found, I would suggest objective research.

My faith is in god, not in (what I think is) a biblical fairytale. But since there is no way for man to prove there is a god, I do have faith because I don't require there to be evidence of that. Even atheists have a faith, which rests in trusting there is no supernatural power or god that exists. I am not going to waste my time searching for evidence that I don't think exists. If you make a claim that something is true, you should at least be able to back that up yourself.

My point, of course, is that the teaching isn't bad. God is truth, God is righteousness. After all, it is God that established good from bad to begin with.

Good, we settled that...I think the teaching is bad, you think it isn't. *phew*

But to say that slavery has little to do with race is to be erroneous. Not all slavery has been race-based, but most of it (again, not all) has been at least class-based, and much of it based on race or nationality.

But that really doesn't matter even if most slavery had to do with race (which I'm not too sure about)...but a lot had to do with class and beliefs. It doesn't matter because I said slavery, just because a lot of slavery had to do with race doesn't mean I was associating it to mean that. I meant slavery simply as man owning man. Because that is what it is, no matter who is involved. So I didn't use the "race-card", since it wasn't brought in for no reason. The reason was to explain to you that good deeds amount to much, even though I know abolishment of any slavery is much more than a good deed. Hopefully we got that settled.

Wait, using your logic, if none of us have read it, how can any of us say that it is a book of peace that teaches good morals? How about we just play it safe and say, "The Koran is a book that some people read and follow."

Exactly, it could be that too. I wasn't asking for you to say that it is a book of peace that teaches good morals. I was just asking you to think "what if that was what it was"? But this was mainly addressed to Loomis...no offense but you might be to crystallized in your own beliefs to really understand what I am getting at. I don't think Loomis does either, but whatever. The bottomline is, we have to actually read the Koran to understand it, not just read "of" it, or "about" it. Because that is complete opinion. Just like if I asked a Christian what the Bible was like, one might say it is a book of guidlelines set by God to help you follow your way to salvation. You'd of course say it is much more than that, and it is all the literal truth. So reading it is completely different than reading ABOUT it.

Dinosaurs have plenty of room in Biblical history. Whether it lines up with science's time frame, I'm not sure, but I don't put much stock in their timing methods. They would have been around with man, though. However, the only person around at first was Adam. He was given dominion over all the creatures and named them, and then Eve came along, and they eventually had children. The Bible teaches that they lived in peace with all the creatures at first, though.

Of course I disagree with you about dinosaurs living in the same time as humans, but why doesn't the Bible explain how they became extinct?

And also, if your style of Biblical interpretation makes you take the Flood literally, then shouldn't you also believe in a flat and stationary earth?

[AwallaceUNC]

A lot of them have gone around in circles a few times and they'll eventually get lost in the shuffle.

And really, the whole thread began to reach that point somewhere around page 9.

So was it also He who translated the Bible from Hebrew to Greek, (or Greek to Hebrew), and then to English, and then to all the languages of the world today?

No. When the Old Testament was written, Hebrew (obviously) was the language spoken by those first recording it on paper at the time. Therefore, the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew.

When Jesus was on Earth, He spoke the language of Aramaic, which happens to be extremely similar to Hebrew, but that's beside the point. Those He spoke to were fluent in Aramaic and Greek (and likely other languages as well). When the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament was originally recorded on paper, it was in Greek. So even though Jesus spoke Aramaic, what He said was recorded in Greek. For example, if you said to me, "Bonjour," and I was writing in English, I would say "PrinceAli said 'Good day.' My point was that the translation from what Jesus said in Aramaic to what was written in Greek was guided by God.

Hmmm, what's weird is that some insects need the whole pack to survive. They couldn't live with only 2 or 7 of their species.

That may be true, I don't know. God brought the animals to Noah so that they could survive. I don't think a little mathematical error would have tripped up the survival of a species (and if you believe the account, then they obviously did survive, or have come to be since that time), but then that goes right back to faith. 'Round and 'round we go.

I don't see how you can have that many babies have time to grow up, have babies of their own, and have them grow up....and then have enough people to build the Tower of Babel. Keep in mind, I think men were the only ones involved in building such structures, so that lowers the population (of working people) a lot already.

We don't know exactly what brought about the construction of the Tower of Babel. It's not because of the number of men working on it. Genesis tells us that it was because they were able to set about it with one mind that they were able to accomplish it. That is why God not only destroyed the tower, but created the different tongues, so that they would not be able to be of one mind. This principle of the power of mental/spiritual unity is a constant throughout the scriptures and is used in various areas of Biblical study.

But what is really funny is that you said earlier that the world is in a moral decline (prophesized by God) since the beginning. Is it possible that having 10 or more babies at the age of (what would probably have to be) 15 is more moral than we think?

No, I never said it's declined since the beginning. Obviously, that isn't true. The flood alone debunks that. Marrying and birthing ages aren't prescribed anywhere in the Bible. Perceptions of appropriate aging for those are important, but very much dependent on culture and time. I never said it was at 10 years of age. That seems a little unlikely, but who knows. But marriage, if truly based on love and within what would have been pre-Jesus laws of God at that time, would have been permitted at much earlier ages. And even if that did represent a great immorality, and even if I had said it had declined since then (neither of which are the case), singling out one issue would hardly disprove an overall decline. But that's just a hypothetical and not really worth arguing.

I really doubt there was ever a world-wide survey in which every single person was forced to respond to. So neither of us is right I guess, we only have our feelings that either most people think it is fake, or most people accept it as truth.

A simple statistics lesson would show that you don't need entirely comprehensive global studies to get fairly accurate results. That's neither here nor there, though. Studies have been done, I've even read some before. I can't really remember exactly what they said, though. But as I stated earlier, it really doesn't matter how many people believe a or b, it doesn't affect either.

My faith is in god, not in (what I think is) a biblical fairytale.

From what do you derive the knowledge that God exists, if not from the Bible?

But since there is no way for man to prove there is a god, I do have faith because I don't require there to be evidence of that. Even atheists have a faith, which rests in trusting there is no supernatural power or god that exists.

Well, I am pleased to hear that.

I am not going to waste my time searching for evidence that I don't think exists. If you make a claim that something is true, you should at least be able to back that up yourself.

Well, that's a choice I'll leave to you to make.

My only claims of truth have been faith-based. Whether or not you want to look beyond the faith into the scientific/historic studies/research that has been done, again, is entirely up to you.

But that really doesn't matter even if most slavery had to do with race (which I'm not too sure about)

Again, I will repeat what I said: not all slavery has been based on race, but most of it has been based on class, much of which often involves race.

...but a lot had to do with class and beliefs.

Right-o.

It doesn't matter because I said slavery, just because a lot of slavery had to do with race doesn't mean I was associating it to mean that. I meant slavery simply as man owning man. Because that is what it is, no matter who is involved. So I didn't use the "race-card", since it wasn't brought in for no reason. The reason was to explain to you that good deeds amount to much, even though I know abolishment of any slavery is much more than a good deed. Hopefully we got that settled.

Do I really need to explain the whole "race card" phrase again? It's a catch phrase, and it can refer to slavery, regardless of whether or not you or I were specifying any one particular race and/or class and/or peoples.

And if you weren't at all trying to murky the waters of a clear debate, so to speak, then I dare say your "try, just try to tell that to someone whose ancestors were owned by another man" diatribe was a wee bit uncalled for and harsh. But as for settling, I would love to. Yet you were the one who just 1 post ago (of your's) refused to "drop it." It's getting a bit tiring, though.

Wait, using your logic, if none of us have read it, how can any of us say that it is a book of peace that teaches good morals? How about we just play it safe and say, "The Koran is a book that some people read and follow."

But this was mainly addressed to Loomis...no offense but you might be to crystallized in your own beliefs to really understand what I am getting at.

Yes, my beliefs render me an idiot.

I don't think Loomis does either, but whatever.

Loomis is a smart cookie himself. But if the two of us are so dense, I can't fathom why you value our input on the discussion enough to respond to it.

The bottomline is, we have to actually read the Koran to understand it, not just read "of" it, or "about" it. Because that is complete opinion.

To completely understand it? Yes, I entirely agree with you there.

Of course I disagree with you about dinosaurs living in the same time as humans, but why doesn't the Bible explain how they became extinct?

Nothing died before Adam & Eve sinned. Dinosaurs were around for at least that long. When Noah took the sampling of all animals on the ark (which would have included Dinosaurs), all the other animals were flooded and killed, likely leaving behind fossils. We know from Biblical (and I've been told other historical documents as well) history that references to dinosaurs continued for awhile after the flood. Eventually, they died out. At least that is one submitted theory, and one that is in keeping with Biblical doctrine. I don't need to tell you that there are countless theories for how they died out, both in and outside of the Bible.

And also, if your style of Biblical interpretation makes you take the Flood literally, then shouldn't you also believe in a flat and stationary earth?

Please elaborate- exactly why is that?

-Aaron

[MickeyMouseboy]

C'mon, MMb. Do we really need snarky asides in this thread? They're almost more annoying than the "stop fighting!" or "you shouldn't discuss these things here!" posts that come through every few pages. e_e

Duh, that's the whole reason behind this.........


Anyways Round 2 was a very wild round. Loomis Vs Prince Ali was a very hard battle but Loomis always comes out victorious. Aaron join the league of prince ali and paka in attacking MMB. Ms Poco Dearest joined in the discussion will she be the key to stopping all this? Also we see an apperance by Netty2099. Round 3 officially begins now!

[Luke]

I'm wondering if the asides and quiz results should go in a new thread, separate from the discussions here. If they don't really have to do with the discussion, then they don't really belong here. But, continue as you wish, for now.

[Christian]

I don't have any problem with dinosaurs. I have an idea of how they fit in with science and religion but don't know exactly how they do. However, I certainly don't think, "Hmm, there's dinosaur fossils. I guess there's no God." Incidentally, the guy who wrote the two Jurassic Park novels seems to believe in dinosaurs and in God. I'm not saying that proves anything other than that there are people who don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

[Loomis]

Exactly, it could be that too. I wasn't asking for you to say that it is a book of peace that teaches good morals. I was just asking you to think "what if that was what it was"? But this was mainly addressed to Loomis...no offense but you might be to crystallized in your own beliefs to really understand what I am getting at. I don't think Loomis does either, but whatever. The bottomline is, we have to actually read the Koran to understand it, not just read "of" it, or "about" it. Because that is complete opinion. Just like if I asked a Christian what the Bible was like, one might say it is a book of guidlelines set by God to help you follow your way to salvation. You'd of course say it is much more than that, and it is all the literal truth. So reading it is completely different than reading ABOUT it.

I think the only point I was trying to get at with the Koran - not having read it - is that the followers are going to be just as dedicated to it as a Christian would be to their bible. I wasn't trying to make any comments on the contents of the bible itself. The main point, however, is that if you are going to discount a text, because you believe your text should be taken literally, should you at least read the other texts first to see what their literal meaning gives you? That was all. I wasn't commenting on the values of either faith.

I don't have any problem with dinosaurs. I have an idea of how they fit in with science and religion but don't know exactly how they do. However, I certainly don't think, "Hmm, there's dinosaur fossils. I guess there's no God."

Again, my point on dinosaurs was not to deny the legitimacy of god, but rather to deny the legitimacy of the bible as god's own word (which was the point of the whole discussion in the first place). As I am coming from the standpoint that the bible was written by humans, humans who had not yet really come to understand the nature of dinosaurs and how they came and ceased to be, my argument was one that tried to suggest that the bible is simply written by pre-modern humans, and not god himself (or herself).

See scientific evidence would suggest that dinosaurs existed many years before mammals (us), whereas a creation story (as opposed to an evolution one) would lead you to believe humans were created at the same time as the earth, and have carried on ever since. The debate rages on, but until there is conclusive proof one way or the other, we won't know. However, the common consensus in the scientific community seems to indicate that dinosaurs and man may have only crossed over for a brief period of time. This would conflict with Genesis. I guess then it is a question of science vs. the bible.

Loomis is a smart cookie himself.

While I humbly disagree, I thank you. You are also one of the brain too. Certainly given me a hard time of keeping up.

I'm wondering if the asides and quiz results should go in a new thread, separate from the discussions here. If they don't really have to do with the discussion, then they don't really belong here. But, continue as you wish, for now.

Unless you are starting to have a problem with the content, I think this should run its own course. It is still basically a conversation about the bible and faith, with an occasional aside (which actually stops us from going at each others throats, I think). So far it has been fun and engaging, and should only be stopped at the point of name-calling. It IS an off-topic section, after all.

[Christian]

Very generally speaking, I believe the earth was created in seven days. The word "day," however, does not always mean a strict 24-hour period. One definition (from yourdictionary.com: http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/d/d0044000.html) is "A period of time in history; an era." Each day could've been thousands or millions of years. This line of thinking may not be new to the people involved in this discussion here so I don't think I'm revealing anything shocking. And, of course I should add that I may not be speaking for all Bible-believing people (a very general term, to be sure). Plus, I have other ideas on the matter that are too extensive to get into here, but to me there is no contradiction.

EDIT: I re-read your last post and saw that you weren't really talking about the "day" issue (sorry, I'm in the middle of my real paying job). So, I'll just clarify and say, yes, I believe dinosaurs came before mammals. And while I don't know everything about the matter I think there may have been very little time, if any, that dinosaurs and humans were contemporary on the earth.

[AwallaceUNC]

whereas a creation story (as opposed to an evolution one) would lead you to believe humans were created at the same time as the earth, and have carried on ever since.

Just a technical note. Genesis actually starts out by telling us that the earth existed before what is known as "creation." It was just a dark void. Then God created light and all that jazz, on down to us.

Loomis is a smart cookie himself.

While I humbly disagree, I thank you. You are also one of the brain too. Certainly given me a hard time of keeping up.

Ditto to what you said about what I said about you.

-Aaron

[Loomis]

Just a technical note. Genesis actually starts out by telling us that the earth existed before what is known as "creation." It was just a dark void. Then God created light and all that jazz, on down to us.

Yes, but all within a matter of 7 days (or 6 actually).
If you believe the scientific version, those events were millions of years apart.

Which beings me to my point that the bible is simply a series of metaphors that can easily be interpreted to fit actual events if you so desire.

While it is inconceivable that dinosaurs and humans were created almost simultaneously with dinosaurs (less than a week apart) from a scientific point of view, if you interpret each of those days as being a period in time (a metaphor for a epoch, to a god this may seem like a day) I think both science and religion can sit nicely next to each other. Of course, if you choose to interpret the bible literally, it would mean that all life was created in a six day period, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is not simply religion versus science, then, as I can see how they would fit next to each other. It is, then, back to the original question of a literal meaning versus a scientific/metaphorical one. I have no problem with the latter religious interpretation, but I just can't see how you fit dinosaur into a creation story, when we should be finding human fossils that are from the same period as the earliest dinosaurs (which I don't believe we have).

[Christian]

I guess now you are bringing up the "day" issue.

Very generally speaking, I believe the earth was created in seven days. The word "day," however, does not always mean a strict 24-hour period. One definition (from yourdictionary.com: http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/d/d0044000.html) is "A period of time in history; an era." Each day could've been thousands or millions of years. This line of thinking may not be new to the people involved in this discussion here so I don't think I'm revealing anything shocking. And, of course I should add that I may not be speaking for all Bible-believing people (a very general term, to be sure).

Personally I believe dinosaurs came before mammals. And while I don't know everything about the matter I think there may have been very little time, if any, that dinosaurs and humans were contemporary on the earth.

EDIT: I'm beginning to realize I may not even be part of this conversation.

[Loomis]

I guess now you are bringing up the "day" issue.

Very generally speaking, I believe the earth was created in seven days. The word "day," however, does not always mean a strict 24-hour period. One definition (from yourdictionary.com: http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/d/d0044000.html) is "A period of time in history; an era." Each day could've been thousands or millions of years. This line of thinking may not be new to the people involved in this discussion here so I don't think I'm revealing anything shocking. And, of course I should add that I may not be speaking for all Bible-believing people (a very general term, to be sure).

I bring up the "day" issue in relation to this, because Aaron's argument is that the bible should be taken literally - the bible is the literal word of god, and the meaning should not be interpreted.

So, I agree with you. In fact, I said as much above - the "day" could be a metaphor for a longer period of time(see my post above). So no, you certainly aren't revealing anything shocking. But someone who says the bible should be taken literally would not follow our line of reasoning.

[Christian]

The funny thing is, you can have two people who both say they believe the Bible literally but still believe different things about it. Having said that, the fact remains that "twenty-four hours" is still just one definition of the word "day." When there's different definitions for a word how do we authoritatively know which of those definitions to use when attempting to interpret the Bible literally?

[PrinceAli]

That may be true, I don't know. God brought the animals to Noah so that they could survive. I don't think a little mathematical error would have tripped up the survival of a species (and if you believe the account, then they obviously did survive, or have come to be since that time), but then that goes right back to faith. 'Round and 'round we go.

'Wherever we stop, nobody knows. Not only that, but some insects don't live for even a year, a lot of them can only survive a few days...and they still live today.

We don't know exactly what brought about the construction of the Tower of Babel. It's not because of the number of men working on it. Genesis tells us that it was because they were able to set about it with one mind that they were able to accomplish it. That is why God not only destroyed the tower, but created the different tongues, so that they would not be able to be of one mind. This principle of the power of mental/spiritual unity is a constant throughout the scriptures and is used in various areas of Biblical study.

Well you wouldn't know how the Tower of Babel was constructed based on Biblical belief. It would require so many miracles...how a population grew so rapidly from 2 people. How so many different tongues were formed within 110-150 years. Again, this to me, was just another fable passed down. The moral to show that arguing and fighting between the different tongues is wrong and they couldn't achieve their common goal of constructing the Tower of Babel.

I never said it was at 10 years of age.

Again, I did not say you said that. I didn't even mention 10 years of age, I said 15. It seems that even the accusing bit is going around in circles too. But I still disagree that there is a moral decline at all. If anything, a moral incline.

From what do you derive the knowledge that God exists, if not from the Bible?

Again, there is no knowledge that God exists, it is all faith. I elicit my faith from my heart and concsious.

Do I really need to explain the whole "race card" phrase again?

Oh please please please nooooo....

It's a catch phrase, and it can refer to slavery, regardless of whether or not you or I were specifying any one particular race and/or class and/or peoples.

Thanks for listening...

Yes, my beliefs render me an idiot.

Ummm, if you really think so...then I guess that is up to you.

Loomis is a smart cookie himself. But if the two of us are so dense, I can't fathom why you value our input on the discussion enough to respond to it.

I don't really think either of you are dense, just thought you'd mis-interpret what I said, and I think that happened...but it's over now. The behind is in the past if you will.

Nothing died before Adam & Eve sinned. Dinosaurs were around for at least that long. When Noah took the sampling of all animals on the ark (which would have included Dinosaurs), all the other animals were flooded and killed, likely leaving behind fossils. We know from Biblical (and I've been told other historical documents as well) history that references to dinosaurs continued for awhile after the flood. Eventually, they died out. At least that is one submitted theory, and one that is in keeping with Biblical doctrine. I don't need to tell you that there are countless theories for how they died out, both in and outside of the Bible.

You are contradicting the very story you are trying to support. You suggest that "all the other animals that were flooded and killed became extinct because of the Flood, while Genesis repeatedly says that Noah was ordered to take a representative sample of all kinds of land animals on the Ark to save them from extinction, and that Noah did as ordered.

And if dinosaurs continued to live after the flood, wouldn't you think people would have some written record about them, besides the biblical Word? And if there is as you claim, please show me some..I can't find anything. It is almost as hard to believe no one wrote about them living amongst humans than it is to believe that there is no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time. Some Christians believe that the none of the Dinosaurs could make it to the "high ground" with the elephants and became died out then, and you have a differing belief.

I don't need to tell you that there are countless theories for how they died out, both in and outside of the Bible.

Yea, I think I know a few myself.

And also, if your style of Biblical interpretation makes you take the Flood literally, then shouldn't you also believe in a flat and stationary earth?

Please elaborate- exactly why is that?

Well, I suggest you re-read Dan. 4:10-11, Matt. 4:8, 1 Chron. 16:30, and Psalms 93:1. And no, I am not taking these out of context either.

I'm not saying that proves anything other than that there are people who don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

Ah yes, the term is atheist.

I think the only point I was trying to get at with the Koran - not having read it - is that the followers are going to be just as dedicated to it as a Christian would be to their bible. I wasn't trying to make any comments on the contents of the bible itself. The main point, however, is that if you are going to discount a text, because you believe your text should be taken literally, should you at least read the other texts first to see what their literal meaning gives you? That was all. I wasn't commenting on the values of either faith.

Ok, I think I mis-interpreted you at first, and then made my remark in a way that confused most people. Glad that is settled.

And while I don't know everything about the matter I think there maybe have been very little time, if any, that dinosaurs and humans were contemporary on the earth.

I might believe that if archaeologists thought the last of the dinosaurs died out 65,000 years ago, rather than 65 MILLION. I think the first "forms" of humans lived 40,000-50,000 years ago at the earliest, but I can always check for sure. But to state the obvious, there were animals then that became extinct while humans lived before Homo Sapien Sapiens, just as there are still animals that are becoming extinct now.

Very generally speaking, I believe the earth was created in seven days. The word "day," however, does not always mean a strict 24-hour period.

Yea, but you keep using different time frames for "day" when conveniant. For example, you say the first 7 days were all millions of years or something...but a little later in the Bible one of the men says they did something in the morning, then the afternoon or whatever He called it, and then at night. I wish I could find that scripture. I don't think a human can live to see all the stages of that one day if they are millions of years. And I don't think they would change that sporatically.

Wow, I don't know how I forgot this one...

You forget that back then, people lived for very, very long periods of time.

Aaron, with all due respect...people did NOT live longer back then. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. People are even starting to live longer than hundreds of years ago because of a healthier diet and way of living.

[MickeyMouseboy]

Very generally speaking, I believe the earth was created in seven days. The word "day," however, does not always mean a strict 24-hour period.

Yea, but you keep using different time frames for "day" when conveniant. For example, you say the first 7 days were all millions of years or something...but a little later in the Bible one of the men says they did something in the morning, then the afternoon or whatever He called it, and then at night. I wish I could find that scripture. I don't think a human can live to see all the stages of that one day if they are millions of years. And I don't think they would change that sporatically.

The Hebrew word used in genesis when talking about "Day" in creation means a long period of time. Later in the bible it states that a day to God is like a million years. The Hebrew word later used for "day" of a simple human it's a 24 hr day

[Christian]

What MickeyMouseboy said. The only slight correction I would make (and I'm not even sure that it's a "correction" per se) is that 2 Peter 3:8 says, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." That may have been what he was thinking. So a day could be twenty-four hours, it could also be a thousand years, it could also mean "A period of time in history; an era." As far as I know, the Bible is allowed to use more than one definition per word. If you don't allow it to then make sure that you yourself never use more than one definition per word for any word that has more than one definition. So from now on I never want you to use the word "set" unless you use it to mean, "To put (eggs) beneath a hen or in an incubator" (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0290900.html).

Ah yes, the term is atheist.

An atheist is somebody who believes in God and who believes that dinosaurs have been on the earth? That's weird. I'm going to have to update my vocabulary.

I might believe that if archaeologists thought the last of the dinosaurs died out 65,000 years ago, rather than 65 MILLION. I think the first "forms" of humans lived 40,000-50,000 years ago at the earliest, but I can always check for sure. But to state the obvious, there were animals then that became extinct while humans lived before Homo Sapien Sapiens, just as there are still animals that are becoming extinct now.

I said I don't know all the particulars and I doubt anybody here does.

[PrinceAli]

The Hebrew word used in genesis when talking about "Day" in creation means a long period of time. Later in the bible it states that a day to God is like a million years. The Hebrew word later used for "day" of a simple human it's a 24 hr day

Awwww that's cute. Where did you find this? I don't think it ever really STATES that a day to God is like a million years. That is an interpretation.

An atheist is somebody who believes in God and who believes that dinosaurs have been on the earth? That's weird.

What the hell? That is NOT what I said. You said there were those who don't accept God and dinosaurs as mutual. That is called an atheist, because everyone knows dinosaurs existed. The only way they can't be mutual with God is if you don't believe in Him.

I said I don't know all the particulars and I doubt anybody here does.

The fossil records are the particulars.

[Christian]

What the hell? That is NOT what I said. You said there were those who don't accept God and dinosaurs as mutual. That is called an atheist, because everyone knows dinosaurs existed. The only way they can't be mutual with God is if you don't believe in Him.

I still think I worded everything correctly but in case I didn't, allow me to clarify. I was simply saying that there are people who believe in the existence of God AND who acknowledge that dinosaurs have been on the earth. They don't think it has to be one or the other.

The fossil records are the particulars.

And whatever knowledge can be gained from them is good. Are you saying that we now know EVERYTHING that is possible to know about the history of the earth and all the lifeforms that have been on it and that there are no ideas which we hold now that will ever be replaced with more correct and accurate ones and that there is no more room for scientific research and discovery?

[MickeyMouseboy]

Awwww that's cute.

Thanks!

[Christian]

Cute AND fluffy!!!

[PrinceAli]

So a day could be twenty-four hours, it could also be a thousand years, it could also mean "A period of time in history; an era." As far as I know, the Bible is allowed to use more than one definition per word. If you don't allow it to then make sure that you yourself never use more than one definition per word for any word that has more than one definition. So from now on I never want you to use the word "set" unless you use it to mean, "To put (eggs) beneath a hen or in an incubator" (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0290900.html).

I am perfectly well aware that a day now is different than a day back then. Numerous written accounts can back that up. I don't need you to tell me that I can only use the word "set" to mean whatever you meant. Set is different, set in the present sense of the word still has more than one meaning. Day, however...only has one meaning at any given time. Whether that be a 24 hours or 1,000 years or whatever.

However, in the Bible if it says that to God a day is 1,000 years, then that would mean it took 7000 years to create everything, if you interpret it that way. And neither do I believe that.