Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site tellab1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!tellab1!heahd
From: heahd@tellab1.UUCP (Dan Wood)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Can a thinking man accept the Bible? (part 2)
Message-ID: <235@tellab1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Jun-84 16:18:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: tellab1.235
Posted: Mon Jun  4 16:18:38 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 04:38:45 EDT
Organization: Tellabs, Inc., Lisle, Ill.
Lines: 122

>   Let's start with this. One of the great misconceptions which
> has haunted the human race teaches that the Bible cannot be reconciled with
> the discoveries of science. This kind of proof is given: We are told
> that the Bible teaches that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
> Then we are told that geological discovery with the atomic age tool
> of radioactive carbon dating has proved that the earth is actually
> millions of years old. Thus we are told that the Bible is wrong!

   We are told that Bishop Usher calculated that the earth was created
in 4004 B.C. by adding up the ages of the patriarchs given in Genesis, not that
this is what the bible teaches. The church used the Bishop's calculations as 
an argument against the new science of geology and the theory of evaloution 
(note I said *theory*, not fact). Not until science had proven that the earth is
certainly more than a few thousand years old did the idea that Genesis is al-
legorical become accepted by the church. Thus, the "great misconception" Mr. 
Jender sites was created and preserved by the church, not by science.

>   But the fact is, the Bible DOES NOT say the earth is only a
> few thousand years old. It doesn't say how old the earth is.
> Genesis 1:1-2 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the 
> earth, and the earth was without form and void".
> Most scholars agree that there was a great time lapse between verses
> 1 and 2. God did not originally create the earth "without form and void".
> He created it a thing of beauty, a prolific planet. But it is evident
> that there were some extensive geological overthrows which took place,
> causing it to become "without form and void".
> Science bears this out, and has given us names for these various ages
> prior to the creation of man--Genozoic, Mesozoic, Jurasic, Cambrian,
> etc. The Bible is in total harmony with true Science!

   Not hardly. For one thing, science says that after the earth had coalesced
from the cosmic dust cloud that it was a ball of molten rock; about as void
and without form as you can get this deep into the sun's gravity well. The
earth did not become a thing of beauty (unless you're into volcanos) until
millions and millions of years later. And once life appeared on earth (through
a series of chemical accidents, according to science, not through divine
intervention as claimed by the bible), it stayed.

>   There was a time when some scientists challenged the Bible 
> story of a major, world-wide flood. But now geology is uncovering
> much evidence that present continents were at one time submerged.
> We have discovered ancient writtings from every continent and
> virtually every civilization. All tell of a great flood which
> destroyed man off the face of the earth. Many bear striking
> resemblance to the story in the Bible.

  How sad that Mr. Jender has presented what seems to be an important argument
to him without doing his homework properly. Geology has uncovered evidence
for a flood in coastal areas of Mesopotamia, not that the present continents
were submerged. If Mr. Jender had studied world mythology instead of
rejecting it out of hand as pagan and therefore untrue, he would know that the
Mesopotamien myths concerning the flood predate anything recorded in the bible.
Saying that the story in the bible bears striking resemblance to the earlier
myths is closer to the truth.


>  The amazing thing about the Bible it that it is as up to date
> today as it was one thousand years ago. In 1861 the French Academy
> of Science published a book stating fifty-one "scientific" facts
> that seemed to contradict the Word of God. It was very impressive
> when published. Yet today, every one of these fifty-one "facts" has
> been found to be unscientific! There isn't a scientist alive who
> believes them. And the Bible stands!

   The instance sited by Mr. Jender is what makes science more palatable then
religion to the thinking man: as new facts come to light science eventually
changes its doctrine. Disproving a set of 100-year old facts does not prove
the bible.

>   The Bible has proven to be history written in advance.
> Could you imagine a newspaper publishing next years additions today
> with uncanny accuracy? Here's just one example...there are hundreds!

>   The Prophet Ezekiel lived 600 years before Christ. One of his
> unbelievable prophecies was against Egypt. He said the land would
> lie utterly waste and desolate for forty years. Then, they would return 
> to their land. But, they would never exalt themselves as a truly great
> nation again. Ezekiel 30:13 said God would take the family of Pharaoh off
> the throne. From then on, Egypt would be ruled by foreigners.
 
>   Babylon the Great arose. King Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt. For
> years the land lay desolate. Later, the Egyptians returned, but true to
> prophecy, never became a great nation again.

>   And what about Ezekiel's prophecy that, "There shall be no more a prince
> of the land of Egypt"? Since the Persians conquered Egypt, there has never
> again been a native Egyptian King! First the Greeks ruled. Later, the Romans.
> Then the Mohammedans, then the Turks, then the French, then the British.
> Today, the rulers of Egypt are not native Egyptians, but ARABS. God
> said a prince of Egypt would never sit on the throne again. And for 2,500
> years the prophecy has held true!

   I've seen no evidence that any thing in the bible was recorded before the 
events it relates. I maintain that the bible is merely recording what happened, 
not predicting it. As for this particular prophecy, it can be seen as true
only if you do not count a native as some one born in a country. If that is
the case, then there are very few native americans in this country (USA). And
seeing as I was born here, I'm damned if I know what I might be a native of.
I'm certainly not a native of Europe, I've never even been there. The only
place I qualify as a native is the land I was born in. If being born in a
country makes you a native of that country then Egypt is now ruled by a native
Egyptian.
-- 


                        Yrs. in Fear and Loathing,
                             The Blue Buffalo
                              Haunted by the -

                               /\      /\
                              / /~~~~~~\ \
                             ( (  \  /  ) )
                              \ [~]  [~] /  
                               \ / || \ / 
                                \ /||\ / ~~~           
                           G     \(^^)/ )    o
                            h     `--'\ (   z
                             o         \)  n
                              s           o
                               t   of    G    
                                        
...!ihnp4!tellab1!heahd