What if....

[IAMX 3,055]

Now let me ask you something. Lets say ET shows up and he religious beliefs very close to ours, maybe even his own version of Jesus. Would you change your mind?

Let's say ET shows up, lands his space craft on the White House lawn and says he IS Jesus. Let's further suppose that he says he made up the whole God thing, and that the Jesus we know is just him, here 2000 years ago doing some research on primitive cultures, and things got a little out of hand. What then?

What if the moon was made out of green cheese? This is your flight of fancy not mine. Ask me again when the mother ship arrives.

"Welcome to Earf" *punches alien*

[Scott & Lai 12]

The Bible wasn't written to tell us everything we ever wanted to know about Everything. If you want to know about the planets, study Astronomy. If you want to know about dinosaurs, study Paleontology. And no where in the Bible does it state that the Earth is only 4000 (or 6000) years old.

Biblical scholars mostly use the 4,000 and 6,000 number.

Here it is from a pro-Christian website.

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/1137/303/

How Old Is The Earth According To The Bible?

The Institute for Creation Research has always taught, as an integral part of its ministry, the concept of the young earth. We have never put an absolute date on the age of the earth. We feel that the Bible doesn't provide all the information necessary for certainty, as shown by the fact that almost every Bible scholar who has ever tried to discern the exact date has come to slightly different conclusions. Maybe all the information is there but we just don't understand it fully yet.

However, lest we be too concerned, every honest attempt to determine the date, starting with a deep commitment to the inerrancy of God's Word, has calculated a span of just a few thousand years, most likely close to 6000 years, since creation. The largest figure I've ever seen from a trustworthy scholar is approximately 15,000 years, but even this seems to stretch the Biblical data too far.

To calculate the date one must first employ the genealogical data given in Genesis, I & II Chronicles, the Gospels, and elsewhere. Information gleaned from Judges, I & II Kings, Daniel, Acts, and other books must be included as well. Since dates are fairly well established archaeologically beginning at about the time of David, these can be a big help. This is because so many Biblical events are referenced to the reigns of individual kings. Obviously, the job is difficult.

Of course the genealogies only begin with the creation of Adam, so the question of time before Adam remains. As has been well noted on these pages, the six days of Creation Week must be of the same length as our days. We recognize, however, that the Hebrew word yom, translated "day," can have a variety of meanings, including an indefinite period of time. Thus, some have suggested that these six days might then be equated with the billions of years claimed by geologists.

Whenever a word in Scripture can have a variety of meanings, we must go to the context to determine what it does mean and not be content with what it might mean. And when we do, we find that the first time yom is used, it is defined as a solar day (Genesis 1:3), and then a total day/night cycle (1:3).

Furthermore, yom is modified by "evening and morning," which in Hebrew can only mean a literal day. It is also modified by an ordinal number (first, second, etc.), a construction limited in Hebrew to that of a literal day. Elsewhere the six days of creation are equated with the six days of our work week (Exodus 20:11), a formula incorporated in the fourth of the Ten Commandments regarding the Sabbath rest. We should mention that the use of a numeral to modify "days," in this case "6," is again reserved for a literal day in Hebrew, as is the use of the plural word "days."

Suffice it to say that no one could conclude that Scripture specifically places Creation any longer ago than a few thousand years, and to my knowledge no one does. Many do hold to an older position, but not for Scriptural reasons. They are convinced by radioisotope dating, perhaps, or maybe the molecular clock of mutation rates, or some other line of thinking, but not from Scripture.

Scripture teaches a young earth, and the time has come for Christians to stop twisting Scripture to fit the evolutionary and uniformitarian speculations of some scientists about the unobserved past. We suggest it's time for such Christians to stop calling themselves "Bible-believing" Christians and start using some such name as "world-believing" Christians.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm

Most estimates based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, and in particular the belief that the Hebrew word : "yom" in Genesis refers to a 24 hour day, cluster around 6,000 years :± 2,000 years for both the age of the Earth and of the rest of the universe. These estimates are promoted by young-Earth creationists, and by the vast majority of Christian para-church organizations which specialize in origins. In 1738, De Vignoles stated that he had accumulated no fewer than 200 computations of the date of creation, all based upon various diverse interpretations of the Bible.

Most conservative groups within Christianity still follow the estimate of Dr. John Lightfoot, a 17th century Anglican clergyman. He estimated that creation occurred during 4004 BCE. Bishop James Ussher in the 17th century made the same estimate a decade later, and got almost all the credit.

This of course cites Genesis numerous times in several points. Taking Genesis literally. So if it was factual, wonder why they keep screwing it up.

Of course, when you also talk about morality, they want to bypass Genesis.

Hence, cherrypicking.

I am very familiar with ICR and their reasoning. I agree with neither their science nor their Biblical exegesis. Some Biblical scholars agree with them, however, many others who take the Biblical text seriously do not agree with them.

[IAMX 3,055]

Bullshirt, you go off on religion with get great regularity whether anyone else brings it up or not.

Another blatant falsehood. You claim to not to argue about a subject which on you claim disinterest.

Still not over the childhood trauma stage yet? Who goes to heavy metal concerts anymore? You'll find a few dinosaurs there.

Blahblah, boring personal attacks. You, yourself, know of the religious hypocrisy I attack. Your own defensiveness is hilarious.

Tolerate ain't your persona online, sorry. You be different in person but I'll never know.

You're right, because you're too busy being judgmental about someone online. Keep trying though.

Here we go again. Who is slamming ET as the devil. Have ever felt the urge to tilt at windmills thinking one is Cheney or another must be a Christian fundementalist?

You know more about the Bible but you don't understand the concept of the "Fall"? Christians are supposed to be sinners or the temptation wouldn't exist.

Your friend brought up the ET thing, don't blame me. Regarding the fall, it's just an excuse used for every single thing man does that contradicts man's own interpretation of things that were wrong long ago. Of course, it is indeed the same Christians who denounce taking literally the same moral precepts from the bible because, why? They're not all in the New Testament?

People are just good at making ####### up on the fly.

I do appreciate you giving us your background and I don't disbelieve your experience. I've met a lot of anti-religous types who got a knee-jerk attitude because they were forced into some form of religion in their youth so they feel the need to assert their independence and retaliate against the perception of being "surrounded" by enemies real or imagined.

Actually I got away from religion because they failed to answer vital questions that I learned in high school pertaining to science, carbon dating, dinosaurs, the very same things I ask now. Even you can't answer it, and must look on Wikipedia for things that don't answer it either. I'm sure though you'll continue acting like the person trying to spread the word and open people's mind, vicariously through Wikipedia. Proving nothing at all, of course.

The irony is I'm about to watch the movie, Holy Mountain. It's as sacrilegious as you can get and you'd probably like it. Oh, it was made in 1973 so it's not new.

I don't like older movies. I find them boring. Enjoy.

[IAMX 3,055]

I am very familiar with ICR and their reasoning. I agree with neither their science nor their Biblical exegesis. Some Biblical scholars agree with them, however, many others who take the Biblical text seriously do not agree with them.

Regarding what? It seems they believe the same thing you do.

Who are the "many others", as well? I don't think I've talked to them yet.

Edited September 26, 2008 by SRVT

[akdiver 3]

What if the moon was made out of green cheese? This is your flight of fancy not mine. Ask me again when the mother ship arrives.

It was a serious question. Looking for honest, thoughtful answers. If you are not able to provide one, feel free to move on. Edited September 26, 2008 by akdiver

[IAMX 3,055]

What if the moon was made out of green cheese? This is your flight of fancy not mine. Ask me again when the mother ship arrives.

It was a serious question. If you don't want to answer, move on.

Sarah Palin is related to ET. ET has also seen Russia and believes in Jesus and God.

Edited September 26, 2008 by SRVT

[Scott & Lai 12]

I am very familiar with ICR and their reasoning. I agree with neither their science nor their Biblical exegesis. Some Biblical scholars agree with them, however, many others who take the Biblical text seriously do not agree with them.

Regarding what? It seems they believe the same thing you do.

Who are the "many others", as well? I don't think I've talked to them yet.

Regarding the age of the Earth and the interpretation of Genesis 1. I don't agree that "yom" (even with the qualifications they list) can only mean a 24 hour day, I don't think the Earth was created 6,000 years ago (I accept the 4.5 billion figure), and there are many other points where I'd disagree, but I'm not going to go into all that here.

So, how do you figure they believe the same thing I do? I do believe God created the Universe, and I believe that Man was created separate from the animals. How and when these things happened are where I part ways with ICR and their followers.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Who are the "many others", as well? I don't think I've talked to them yet.

Check out Reasons to Believe (reasons.org) and Answers in Creation (answersincreation.org) for just two examples.

[IAMX 3,055]

I am very familiar with ICR and their reasoning. I agree with neither their science nor their Biblical exegesis. Some Biblical scholars agree with them, however, many others who take the Biblical text seriously do not agree with them.

Regarding what? It seems they believe the same thing you do.

Who are the "many others", as well? I don't think I've talked to them yet.

Regarding the age of the Earth and the interpretation of Genesis 1. I don't agree that "yom" (even with the qualifications they list) can only mean a 24 hour day, I don't think the Earth was created 6,000 years ago (I accept the 4.5 billion figure), and there are many other points where I'd disagree, but I'm not going to go into all that here.

So, how do you figure they believe the same thing I do? I do believe God created the Universe, and I believe that Man was created separate from the animals. How and when these things happened are where I part ways with ICR and their followers.

Well then, I respect your individual beliefs, even though it does obviously boil down to that, and not at all historical accuracy of Genesis. Even though I'm not a person who believes or disbelieves in a creator (I do poke fun at people's interpretation, but that's for everything, and it comes around too), I do think accepting logical conclusions and challenging the status quo is healthy in maintaining a perspective on truthfulness and honesty. Science, for instance, only gets better because older theories, while true, get overridden because of methods used of testing. But when religions are held to the same litmus test (and asserted to be true, rather than tested to be true) they end up making less sense.

I will point, out, due to your last post, that in attending church most people accepted the 4,000 year Earth doctrine. This was at a Presbyterian church. Still, within those confines, they believed in dinosaurs, and would find any way they could to reject or simply dismiss evolution only on the grounds that it is contradictory to Genesis' historical accuracy as most popularly believed. I mean, man evolving from apes does spat in the face of the "man created separate from animals" belief. And really the more we learn about biology the more we see how closely connected to animals we are.

Edited September 26, 2008 by SRVT

[akdiver 3]

Bah. You guys spoiled a perfectly good thread. This wasn't supposed to turn into a religious debate ):

[IAMX 3,055]

Your smileys are facing the wrong way!

[Scott & Lai 12]

I will point, out, due to your last post, that in attending church most people accepted the 4,000 year Earth doctrine.

Clearly, we went to different churches

[akdiver 3]

Your smileys are facing the wrong way!

They're facing the right way, you just need to adjust your perspective.

[Emancipation 2]

In this instance - do you think the creationists and bible thumpers will continue to stick to their story? Do you think they will dismiss the painfully obvious and not at least admit there is E.T. life? Do you think they will modify their theology to accommodate this latest knowledge? What do you think people like the pope would do? Do you think this would dramatically alter the spiritual/religious approaches/tactics/beliefs that exist on earth? Do you think mass panic and a breakdown of society would be the result?

If YOU are a creationist and/or devout bible thumper - what would YOUR reaction be?

How exactly was it NOT to turn into a religious argument with your original questions? You wanted answers from the "religious".. It amazes me that when people post their perspective it becomes a dismissing match straight away.. You asked a question and people started to answer.. Listen for goodness sake!!!

[akdiver 3]

How exactly was it NOT to turn into a religious argument with your original questions? You wanted answers from the "religious".. It amazes me that when people post their perspective it becomes a dismissing match straight away.. You asked a question and people started to answer.. Listen for goodness sake!!!

It started out good...but then it got into a rant about the validity of the bible. That rant has been done many times before. I was looking specifically for the view from the religious about the scenario posed - not rants about whether or not the bible is true, how many days are really in a day, the age of the earth and so forth.