Can any "Old earth" Creationists (*cough 5StringJeff *cough*) Explain this one?

[Gaffer]

I think the Bible must certainly appear cryptic to those who would assert that the Bible is inconsistent with reality.

You say that Noah's Ark couldn't hold every phylum on Earth, much less every species; setting aside that the Bible doesn't claim exactly that, I argue you're talking about God here, and He certainly is capable of making Noah's effort achievable, just as written. That's the premise in the subtext, Hobbit--God made this business happen; it was not a "natural" phenominon, and not subject to the rules of "nature." There's no reason to get cryptic, no reason to try to fit the Bible to our notions of the world, and no need to get apologetic about the findings of scientists; what was meant to be said is, is that it all just happened the way it was written.

It's a story that ranks right up there with the Lord of the Rings or the Sword of Shannara. Magic and fantasy.

[LOki]

It's a story that ranks right up there with the Lord of the Rings or the Sword of Shannara. Magic and fantasy.

The Lord of the Rings or the Sword of Shannara are certainly magical and fantastic, as the Bible is, but literary value is really not the point of the discussion; and they are irrelevent, as they are both unambiguously works of fiction.

[Doniston]

The Lord of the Rings or the Sword of Shannara are certainly magical and fantastic, as the Bible is, but literary value is really not the point of the discussion; and they are irrelevent, as they are both unambiguously works of fiction.

Fiction, as opposed to fact? Then the Bible is also by and large "fictional".

[Hobbit]

The Lord of the Rings or the Sword of Shannara are certainly magical and fantastic, as the Bible is, but literary value is really not the point of the discussion; and they are irrelevent, as they are both unambiguously works of fiction.

That's pretty wrong. There's no such thing as Middle Earth at all, so Lord of the Rings is 100% fiction. However, the Bible is so historically accurate that archeologists who work in that part of the world often carry one as an aid.

[Gaffer]

The Lord of the Rings or the Sword of Shannara are certainly magical and fantastic, as the Bible is, but literary value is really not the point of the discussion; and they are irrelevent, as they are both unambiguously works of fiction.

There is as much fiction in those books as there is in the book of genisis. The book of genisis was written by a number of different authors. Kinda like a chain story.

[LOki]

Fiction, as opposed to fact? Then the Bible is also by and large "fictional".

There is as much fiction in those books as there is in the book of genisis.

What in Genesis, do you assert is fiction, and what evidence do you present in support your assertion?

The book of genisis was written by a number of different authors. Kinda like a chain story.

Is that so? You'll present evidence to this effect?

[LOki]

That's pretty wrong. There's no such thing as Middle Earth at all, so Lord of the Rings is 100% fiction. However, the Bible is so historically accurate that archeologists who work in that part of the world often carry one as an aid.

You seem to be replying to someone else.

[Hobbit]

You seem to be replying to someone else.

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were agreeing that the Bible was 'completely fictional.' In any case, I disagree with that view.

[LOki]

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were agreeing that the Bible was 'completely fictional.' In any case, I disagree with that view.

I assert that The Lord of the Rings and the Sword of Shannara both are unambiguously works of fiction; thus irrelevent to subject at hand despite my acceptance that they certainly exhibit the literary qualities of the magical and fantastic, as the Bible does.

I still affirm, however, exhibiting the literary qualities of the magical and fantastic is no argument against taking the Bible literally.

[Gaffer]

What in Genesis, do you assert is fiction, and what evidence do you present in support your assertion?

Is that so? You'll present evidence to this effect?

All of genisis is fiction. It was nothing but an attempt to explain what couldn't be understood at the time. Everything must have a begining and a reason. You can check any legitimate theologian site and read about the various writers of genisis. They don't know the names, but they do know there were a number of contributors.

The bible, except for genisis, is historical and a great source for archeologists. But genisis is just mythology.

[LOki]

All of genisis is fiction.

Ok. Instead of "much fiction," Genesis is "all fiction" then. This assertion is just expressing your previous assertion more emphatically--but it's not evidence that Genesis is much, or all, fiction. Now I'm fully aware that you assert Genesis is fiction, and I won't be confused about your position should you supply evidence that Genesis is fiction. So, how about that evidence?

It was nothing but an attempt to explain what couldn't be understood at the time.

Yes. That rationale is consistent with your assertion that Genesis is fiction, but it is not evidence that Genesis is fiction.

Everything must have a begining and a reason.

Yes. Nothing in Genesis denies that--so perhaps that part of Genesis may not be fiction?

You can check any legitimate theologian site and read about the various writers of genisis. They don't know the names, but they do know there were a number of contributors.

What is a legitimate theologian site, what make them legitimate, and what evidence do they supply to support the assertion that there were various writers of Genesis?

The bible, except for genisis, is historical and a great source for archeologists. But genisis is just mythology.

Yes, I understand. This assertion is still not evidence that Genesis is fiction, it is just reasserting your previous assertion. I understand fully that you plan to be consistent with your assertion that Genesis is fiction. Fine. You'll present evidence that Genesis is fiction?

[Doniston]

Ok. Instead of "much fiction," Genesis is "all fiction" then. This assertion is just expressing your previous assertion more emphatically--but it's not evidence that Genesis is much, or all, fiction. Now I'm fully aware that you assert Genesis is fiction, and I won't be confused about your position should you supply evidence that Genesis is fiction. So, how about that evidence?

Yes. That rationale is consistent with your assertion that Genesis is fiction, but it is not evidence that Genesis is fiction.

Yes. Nothing in Genesis denies that--so perhaps that part of Genesis may not be fiction?

What is a legitimate theologian site, what make them legitimate, and what evidence do they supply to support the assertion that there were various writers of Genesis?

Yes, I understand. This assertion is still not evidence that Genesis is fiction, it is just reasserting your previous assertion. I understand fully that you plan to be consistent with your assertion that Genesis is fiction. Fine. You'll present evidence that Genesis is fiction?

You continue stress the question about the fiction of Genesis. Since not s single portion of it can be proven to be anything but the opinions of the writers, it is simply a case of trying to prove a negative. If this is not so, kindly provide the slightest shread of evidence to the contrary, That would take some sort of physical proof. not theological.

[LOki]

You continue stress the question about the fiction of Genesis.

I may be questioning basis of, the so far unsupported, assertion that Genesis is fiction, Doniston, but I'm not stressing the question of the fictional nature of the Genesis story--those who continue with the, so far unsupported, assertion that Genesis is fiction, are. That would appear include you.

Since not s single portion of it can be proven to be anything but the opinions of the writers, it is simply a case of trying to prove a negative.

Yes. But, Doniston, I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative. I'm asking those who positively assert that the Genesis story is fiction to prove that the Genesis story is fiction. It's entirely different to assert there is no proof that the Genesis story has basis in verifiable evidence; and it's an entirely different challenge, than mine, to demand the submission of proof, of no proof.

If this is not so, kindly provide the slightest shread of evidence to the contrary, That would take some sort of physical proof. not theological.

It does not take physical proof, Doniston, it takes only the proof you have already provided--I don't have to submit non-existent physical proof that the Genesis story not fiction. For the argument I am making, I am fully comfortable with the assertion that there is no physical proof that the Genesis story is valid in fact of reality. I'm just not going to go further past my argument, to say that such lack of physical proof, is proof that the Genesis story is not valid in fact of reality, as others, including you, seem to assert.

[Gunny]

Genesis is a lie.
A story that is no better than Greek Mythology.

Its not to say however, that a creator was not present in the making of everything....But Genesis was just basically folklore that the Jews used to explain what science could not tell them in their day.

Guess you just proved CP's point.

[Doniston]

I may be questioning basis of, the so far unsupported, assertion that Genesis is fiction, Doniston, but I'm not stressing the question of the fictional nature of the Genesis story--those who continue with the, so far unsupported, assertion that Genesis is fiction, are. That would appear include you.

Yes. But, Doniston, I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative. I'm asking those who positively assert that the Genesis story is fiction to prove that the Genesis story is fiction. It's entirely different to assert there is no proof that the Genesis story has basis in verifiable evidence; and it's an entirely different challenge, than mine, to demand the submission of proof, of no proof.

It does not take physical proof, Doniston, it takes only the proof you have already provided--I don't have to submit non-existent physical proof that the Genesis story not fiction. For the argument I am making, I am fully comfortable with the assertion that there is no physical proof that the Genesis story is valid in fact of reality. I'm just not going to go further past my argument, to say that such lack of physical proof, is proof that the Genesis story is not valid in fact of reality, as others, including you, seem to assert.

This whole response is a collection of controdictory statements, and as such, makes absolutely no sense.