How could a sensible person believe in the bible?

[Katzpur]

I saw this preacher Ken Hamm or something trying to teach kids that dinosaurs and humans lived together. I can't understand how he can defend that at all. He believes that if it's not in the bible, it never happened. Personally i can't understand how people believe in the bible. Honestly how could you believe a book that says God created the world about 10,000 years ago? Too bad for them because life fossils have been discovered that date back billions of years. Even the skeletons of modern humans date back before the time of Adam and Eve. I believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean i dont believe in God like all of these evangelists think. They have all just been horribly mislead since birth and are now proceeding to brainwash the children of our future.

You say you believe in both God and in evolution. So do I. But asking how a sensible person can believe in the Bible is not exactly a sensible question for you, as a theist, to be asking in the first place. If you believe in God at all (and I'm assuming you're not referring to pagan gods but to some version of the Abrahamic God), you must obviously accept the possibility that there are questions which we do not currently have the ability to answer, that there are truths that we don't have the knowledge to explain. Part of any kind of a belief in God requires us to accept the idea that there is a Higher Power who knows things we don't know and can do things we can't explain. The Bible is a collection of writings attempting to explain such things as the miracle of creation. It doesn't need to be taken literally in order to be believed. I'll go along with you that it's pretty absurd to believe that humans and dinosaurs populated the earth at the same time, and that the earth is only 10,000 years old. But the Bible doesn't even mention dinosaurs, much less describe when they lived. It was written by men of faith, but by men of science. It was never intended to be what you seem to think it is. Wouldn't it make more sense to accept it for what it is, and just take some wacko preacher's interpretation of it with a grain of salt?

 

[slabbey06]

I just spent a really long time thinking and writing out a reply and lost it:sad4:.
I'm too discouraged right now to try to retype it all...maybe tomorrow.
But here's a link to an article I read and thought was interesting in light of this debate.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

 

[Halcyon]

Correct me if I'm wrong Halcyon, but those protein fragments are found in teeth, if I'm rememering right.

As far as i'm aware (being a biologist not a paleontologist) teeth are subject to the same form of fossilisation as bone, so i guess that the chances (however small) of protein surviving are similar. Although saying that, teeth are denser than bone so .
Either way there is no chance of getting living blood cells out of a fossil, be it a bone or tooth.

I'm not sure if Joeboonda is aware, but red blood cells have a very short lifespan in a living organism (4 months-ish), obviously this is markedly reduced in a dead one .
So unless joeboonda believes this T.rex was running around and was fossilised as recently as the 1990's......

I'd speculate it has to do with the belief that animals don't have souls and we do, or that somehow if we acknowledged that we once looked simian, somehow that would make us a "lesser" species.

Maybe it's a kind of species xenophobia.

I find that quite depressing.

Well, ultimately our ancestors, like we ourselves, were a handful of clay. We turn back into clay soon enough too.

:slap:

 

[slabbey06]

How could a sensible person believe in the Bible? I think this question is at the root of most of our biblical debates. Like everything, we approach the Bible with our presuppositions about it. I believe the Bible is 100% accurate, that God's Spirit moved in men to record without error the message He wanted us to have. So it's sensible for me to interpret science, history, life in general, through the lens of Scripture and tell others why I believe science, history, life in general, doesn't contradict the Bible. For the person who doesn't believe the Bible is 100% accurate, it's sensible for them to interpret science, history, life in general, through a different lens and tell others why they believe science, history, life in general, does contradict the Bible.
When it comes to Genesis 1, which is being debated a lot on this thread, I believe the Bible teaches that God literally created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Now I admit that I approach this chapter with my belief that the Bible is true, that "there was morning and there was evening" and that the use of the word "day" are to be taken literally. This may cause an uproar, but the "scientific evidence" I have seen for evolution that is suppose to contradict creation, I haven't once seen it hold up or in any way disprove creation.
But I honestly think the real issue here is whether the Bible is true or not. We all base our presuppositions on some type of authority, whether it's the Bible, science, ourself, or whatever. And let's face it, if someone can prove that one part of the Bible is untrue, then we might as well throw out the whole thing, because the Bible claims that ALL Scripture is God-breathed. If Genesis 1 isn't true, but a nice sounding story, then who's to say that God taking on flesh, living a sinless life, dying and rising again, so that those who believe in Him may have life in His name, isn't also just a nice sounding story?
None of this really answers the OP question, but it's what was on my mind. I liked how I worded it better last night before I lost it, but since you don't know what that looked like, I guess I'll get over it.

 

[lew0049]

I saw this preacher Ken Hamm or something trying to teach kids that dinosaurs and humans lived together. I can't understand how he can defend that at all. He believes that if it's not in the bible, it never happened. Personally i can't understand how people believe in the bible. Honestly how could you believe a book that says God created the world about 10,000 years ago? Too bad for them because life fossils have been discovered that date back billions of years. Even the skeletons of modern humans date back before the time of Adam and Eve. I believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean i dont believe in God like all of these evangelists think. They have all just been horribly mislead since birth and are now proceeding to brainwash the children of our future.

The dating methods used are interesting - in that one method will claim a few million years while another says nearly a billion.
Also, the foundation of dating methods are based on assumptions, assumptions that cannot be proven correct at all. For instance, Carbon Dating is based on four assumptions.
And believing is Macro-evolution, well, I don't see how it is sensible to believe in it.

 

[lew0049]

Also, another thing that I have thought about over the years is this: lets just say that God did create the world. Thus, lets say he created a tree today (weird I know but just try to follow). Now, if we were to look at the tree tomorrow, the dating method we use for trees would conclude that the tree was 50ish (whatever age) years old. But in reality, since God just created that tree today, the tree is truly one day old instead of 50ish years old. It is a bit off the subject and probably irrelevant, but it was just something that I have been pondering.

 

[logician]

"How could a sensible person believe in the bible? "

One has to take the bible on faith, those wanting reason and logic please don't apply.

 

[UnTheist]

The dating methods used are interesting - in that one method will claim a few million years while another says nearly a billion.
Also, the foundation of dating methods are based on assumptions, assumptions that cannot be proven correct at all. For instance, Carbon Dating is based on four assumptions.

Yes, certain datings can be inaccurate. Sedimentary rocks, I think, would be an example. But radioactive dating used correctly is actually spot on it's predictions, and other dating methods (eg. Dendrochronology, ice core dating) come to the same conclusions as radiometric dating.

And believing is Macro-evolution, well, I don't see how it is sensible to believe in it.

No belief is required. It's simple fact, just like gravity and thermodynamics.

 

[rojse]

If God has changed the world so that it appears to be billions of years old through carbon dating methods and so forth, when it is really six thousand years old, would that not make God the prince of liars and deceivers?

 

[Katzpur]

How could a sensible person believe in the Bible? I think this question is at the root of most of our biblical debates. Like everything, we approach the Bible with our presuppositions about it. I believe the Bible is 100% accurate, that God's Spirit moved in men to record without error the message He wanted us to have. So it's sensible for me to interpret science, history, life in general, through the lens of Scripture and tell others why I believe science, history, life in general, doesn't contradict the Bible. For the person who doesn't believe the Bible is 100% accurate, it's sensible for them to interpret science, history, life in general, through a different lens and tell others why they believe science, history, life in general, does contradict the Bible.
When it comes to Genesis 1, which is being debated a lot on this thread, I believe the Bible teaches that God literally created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Now I admit that I approach this chapter with my belief that the Bible is true, that "there was morning and there was evening" and that the use of the word "day" are to be taken literally. This may cause an uproar, but the "scientific evidence" I have seen for evolution that is suppose to contradict creation, I haven't once seen it hold up or in any way disprove creation.
But I honestly think the real issue here is whether the Bible is true or not. We all base our presuppositions on some type of authority, whether it's the Bible, science, ourself, or whatever. And let's face it, if someone can prove that one part of the Bible is untrue, then we might as well throw out the whole thing, because the Bible claims that ALL Scripture is God-breathed. If Genesis 1 isn't true, but a nice sounding story, then who's to say that God taking on flesh, living a sinless life, dying and rising again, so that those who believe in Him may have life in His name, isn't also just a nice sounding story?
None of this really answers the OP question, but it's what was on my mind. I liked how I worded it better last night before I lost it, but since you don't know what that looked like, I guess I'll get over it.

Slabbey,

Do you believe it would be blasphemous to believe that anything in the Bible might be allegorical or metaphorical? Jesus often taught in parables, and most often did not preface His remarks by saying, "The story I am about to tell you did not actually happen exactly as I am going to relay it, but is intended to help you understand a particular point I want to make." His audience seemed to realize that the parable of the "Good Samaritan," the parable of the "Prodigal Son," and others may not have been factual accounts of events which actually transpired, but that there was an important lesson to be learned from them nonetheless. I'm wondering if you believe it possible than some of the stories we read in the Old Testamant particularly might have been parables, too. I'm not necessary referring to the events described in Genesis, to the Flood or anything else. I'm just asking this as a general question. Is there any reason why, if some of the stories we read in the Bible might not have been the words of God's prophets trying to teach their audience about God in the form of a parable? Or do you believe that this perspective amounts to heresy?

 

[slabbey06]

Slabbey,

Do you believe it would be blasphemous to believe that anything in the Bible might be allegorical or metaphorical? Jesus often taught in parables, and most often did not preface His remarks by saying, "The story I am about to tell you did not actually happen exactly as I am going to relay it, but is intended to help you understand a particular point I want to make." His audience seemed to realize that the parable of the "Good Samaritan," the parable of the "Prodigal Son," and others may not have been factual accounts of events which actually transpired, but that there was an important lesson to be learned from them nonetheless. I'm wondering if you believe it possible than some of the stories we read in the Old Testamant particularly might have been parables, too. I'm not necessary referring to the events described in Genesis, to the Flood or anything else. I'm just asking this as a general question. Is there any reason why, if some of the stories we read in the Bible might not have been the words of God's prophets trying to teach their audience about God in the form of a parable? Or do you believe that this perspective amounts to heresy?

I usually don't communicate as clearly as I hope, so I'm glad you asked this question. No, I do not believe it is blasphemous or heresy to believe that anything in the Bible might be allegorical or metaphorical. I don't want to deviate from the original intent of the thread though, so should I post what I believe here, or would you like me to PM you my thoughts??

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Or, for that matter, how can a sensible person eat cheesecake?!

Ridiculousness, I say.

hmmmmmmm....CHEESECAKE!!!!!!

d'oh...

I must come to my senses...........

 

[Smoke]

Also, another thing that I have thought about over the years is this: lets just say that God did create the world. Thus, lets say he created a tree today (weird I know but just try to follow). Now, if we were to look at the tree tomorrow, the dating method we use for trees would conclude that the tree was 50ish (whatever age) years old. But in reality, since God just created that tree today, the tree is truly one day old instead of 50ish years old. It is a bit off the subject and probably irrelevant, but it was just something that I have been pondering.

It's not really off the subject at all. Many creationists claim, in fact, that God created the universe "full grown," with the appearance of being much older than it actually is. If one insists on believing that the world is about 6,000 years old, one really has to believe something like that.

Nevertheless, when we see a tree that appears to be fifty years old, it's more likely to be fifty years old than to have been created full-grown the day we see it.

 

[rojse]

But you could use that logic, and say that the world was created last Thursday, with our memories implanted, and the age of everything in the universe created merely to make us think that the earth is four point five billion years old.

 

[Smoke]

But you could use that logic, and say that the world was created last Thursday, with our memories implanted, and the age of everything in the universe created merely to make us think that the earth is four point five billion years old.

The Creationists are asking you to believe, and to teach in the schools, a theory that's little more plausible than that.

 

[rojse]

The Creationists are asking you to believe, and to teach in the schools, a theory that's little more plausible than that.

That is my point.

 

[Katzpur]

I usually don't communicate as clearly as I hope, so I'm glad you asked this question. No, I do not believe it is blasphemous or heresy to believe that anything in the Bible might be allegorical or metaphorical. I don't want to deviate from the original intent of the thread though, so should I post what I believe here, or would you like me to PM you my thoughts??

I think your thoughts on this would probably be close enough to the intent of the OP to be worthwhile here on this thread, if you don't mind. I guess I was just thinking in terms of the title of the thread. "How could a sensible person believe in the Bible?" It's an insulting question, IMO. I consider myself very sensible and I believe in the Bible. I do believe that parts of it are metaphorical, though, and don't think we have to take a literal interpretation of every word in it in order to say that we believe in it. That's why I wondered what your opinion was. (I'm going to be out of town for a few days, though, so I may not see your post until the end of the week.)

 

[joeboonda]

Answers in Genesis! Answers in Genesis!! Answers in Genesis!!!

www.answersingenesis.com

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Creationists are asking you to believe, and to teach in the schools, a theory that's little more plausible than that.

How so?

God would have to have committed just as much deception to create evidence of a 4.5 billion year-old Earth if He created it 6000 years ago as if He created it last Thursday.

If it's "plausible" to believe that God would plant fossils in the ground, embed the history of 100 million years of geomagnetic reversals in the rock of the ocean floor, place the light from distant galaxies just 6000 years out from us, and do all the other things that would be necessary to make a new Earth look old, why would it be any less "plausible" to think that He might implant a few false memories in His creation?

Age of a belief and number of adherents does not automatically make the belief plausible... or even rational.

 

[Smoke]

How so?

I think you misunderstood me. I said "little more," not "a little more." Creationism is sheer nonsense, and many religious people caught onto that a long time ago. The state of religion and the state of education being what they are in the United States, though, we'll be having this argument for a long time to come.