I agree with you there. But that again opens up that the earth is older than what is portrayed by most creationists.

dmead, in my opinion if one believes that God did create man then certainly he can take care of him for a day before putting him on earth.

Not really. If a day to us is only seconds to God. I made my points about fossils and how they came to be and no one on the other side wants to hear my arguments.

I believe the flood caused all the fossils

The flood causing the fossils has a ton of problems though because then they would be evenly distributed all at the same levels, they are not.

Great documentary on the Flood yesterday that came to a pretty good conclusion that the Flood likely could have been a result of a major flood of the Black Sea, and that the people living there fled to the middle east and their flood event because the source of the Noah flood and the Gilgamesh flood of the Koran. Its supported by fossils of fresh water shellfish at the bottom of the black sea and ancient beach and farms that have been underwater for thousands of years.

The question of time is a huge question mark in terms of the Bible. Like Noah being 500 years old, which was not unusual during his time according tot he Bible. Christian scholars do not agree whether he actually was 500 years old or that the term is used to show that he was more respected than the average person. There are so many questions that come from the Bible that every branch of Christianity has its own way to read it.

Have you ever been to the grand canyon and looked at the walls of the canyon? They are in perfect lines of sediment and signs of erosion by a massive amount of water not just a river running through.

I do believe that people lived longer during that time. Prior to the flood the earth was much different than it is now. I believe there was a layer of protection around the earth kind of like an embrionic sack a baby is in. I think this was destroyed by God during the flood to release all the water on to the earth.

I believe that the first humans on earth were much larger in statue than we are now. Just look at the size of the buidlings and things that were built in ancient times massive buildings that were built with out machines we have today.

Yes but if one event caused it then the fossils in the grand canyon would all be at that same depth, they are not.

The Bible mentions nothing about a sack of water. It mentions rain & the tradition is that Moses was given the Torah on Mt. Sinai so do you think that Moses was not told the truth by God?

Not sure where you get the bigger people, not saying your wrong but I think slave labor was responsible for many of the ancient projects.

So that means there were other people before Adam and Eve, right?

why does that mean there were people before them? all that we have said with regards to Christianity is that adam & eve were the first. I think dawg is saying that they were perhaps bigger than current humans.

the fountains of the great deep broken up,and the windows of heaven were opened. I used the phrase sack not the bible. Not sure what Moses has to do with the discussion of the flood and fossils.

Ok, so many of you don't believe in the creation story and the flood during Noah's time.

Let me throw this out there... do you believe Jesus:
a) turned the water into wine,
b) fed the thousands from a few loaves of bread and fish,
c) brought Lazarus to life
d) or even rose from the dead, himself?

No the bible says Adam and Eve were the first people and they had quite a few children in eight hundred years. they were told to go fourth and multiply.

Marrying your sister or brother was common up until the time when Moses declared it illegal.

Yes 100% I believe it all. No doubt in my mind what so ever.

When I was in school (Catholic School), we were taught that much of the bible consists of parables. We are tasked with discerning what is parable and what actually happened. This method of understanding the Bible perhaps opens some doors for the possibilty of evolution and religion coexisting. All parts of the bible are open for interpretation and I acknowledge that someone has to be wrong, even if it is me.

Moses is thought to have been given the first four books of the Bible directly from God. So if Moses did not include that the flood came from a sack then I was pointing out that either God did not tell him that or that Moses deemed it not worthy of being in Genesis.

and your idea of the sack is interpreting the Bible, there are millions of interpretations just like that.

I think the current and last Pope would take issue with your teachers on that.

Bigolsparky, I was taught the same thing in school (non-denominational christian school).
we were taught that the Bible consisted of both parables and of actual events. The parables are often in it for the effect of showing the power of faith.

my understanding has always been the Catholic traditions are far more rigid and therefore they are more traditional than other forms of christianity. And in fact there might not be a Bible if not for the Catholic Church protecting it in the past.

There are numerous accounts in the Bible of parables being told. Jesus taught primarily through parables throughout His ministry.

Old Testament acts like the Flood, parting of the Red Sea and the plagues are not parables, and are not indicated as such. New Testament teachings contains many parables such as the rich young ruler, building on sand vs. a firm foundation, casting seed on hard ground are parables, and stated to be exactly that.

It wasnt a interperetation. I didnt know how else to explain it in print.



exactly, I know the difference in a parable and fact.

that is your opinion, and I know yours is a very popular one but its not the only way to interpret the Bible. There are parables used in the Old Testament as well. One comes to mind within the story of David.

Parables have been used in religion forever and to think that either God or the writers of the Old testament did not include them is something I do not believe in.

But dawg if you believe the Bible as 100% fact then what is there to interpret? It should be followed as written then.

I mean interpretation of the Bible is what lead to the current belief that the New Testament should be important than the Old Testament. Certainly if we all followed the entire Bible as law then the world would be a different place.

Certainly there are miracles and deeds done in the Bible that are there to show what actually happened, but there are parables in both the new and old Testaments that are there strictly to show the benefits of faith. All I am saying is that I do not think it would be unthinkable that the Old Testament contains stories that are not in their because they are fact but they are included to show the struggles and the rewards of the faithful.