Is the Bible Inspired?

Obvously you haven’t heard of the Days of Proclamation view. that is what I provided the link to, but you can find other people discussing it on the net. It says that Genesis 1 is the pre–planning for the universe–nothing was created instantly. It takes advantage of a dichotomy of who is conveying informaiton. And God said, ‘Let there be light’. that is what God said. The human writer said, "and it was so’ but he doesn’t say WHEN it was so. Each day can be treated that way and Genesis 1 becomes proclamations of what would come about in our universe, not an account of what had just been created. Gensis 2 was billions of years after Genesis 1–after the big bang.

One thing seems clear to me, at least, God didn’t say, 'let there be light and it was so." Why would he tell himself it was so? Wouldn’t he know it? One has to take my views as a unified whole and they are quite different than what the average held views are.

Hi Blue. I am not sure what the issue is, I am tired so the problem may be me. Christy wrote:

In some way, God is the ultimate source of the truth the Bible communicates,

I replied: Bahai say the same about their books.

I do beleive that is correct, at least for most Bahai, certainly not for every single one. Bahai believe their God is the ultimate source of truth for their books. And shouldn’t they believe that? I think they should

If you are pointing out that they also believe the Bible, they, like Islam believe in progressive revelation and we Christians have been outdated now. At least that is my understanding. They no longer believee that what we believe is metaphysical truth for today.

I need to correct something, it was the Bab who escaped from the prison. Bahai believes each ‘revelator’ lifts humanity to new heights, but also supercede the previous guy. these are: Adam, Noah, Sabean, Abraham, Khrishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha’u’llah

The differences between the two creation stories that I pointed out concerned order and method.

You did not answer the question about which came first, man or vegetation.

If you decide to answer, I will be interested in your answer.

I would suggest that you are not hearing what I am saying. I will start over. I am fully evolutionary. Vegetation came first. Man came about 350-400 myr later than vegetation. OK?

But, I don’t beleive that is what the Bible is saying. A book or a building can be planned in any order. Genesis 1 is, I believe the planning for the unvierse NOTHING WAS CREATED DURING THE PLANNING. Then the plan was put into place and it rolled out just like science says. I am not a YEC. You would be better served not try to force my views into YEC molds.

Yes, the reason Muslims persecute the Bahai so harshly is that Mohammad was supposed to be the final and greatest prophet. Wonder what they think of prophet Joseph Smith? Prophet leap frog!

1 Like

Thank you for clarifying that you believe plants came before man. I agree.

Since you believe plants came before man, you also disagree with the literal reading of the second creation story (beginning in Genesis 2.4b). The second creation story says man was formed before any plants had sprung up.

Cobra, you can go look me up on the internet. This thread is asking a particular question about the Bible and geology. I will be glad to PM with you explain my views or you can start a thread on gbob’s bad viewpoint. I will show up. I will answer one more time. on this plant issue that is worrying you so much.

If you have paid attention, you know now where I beleive the flood was. I can frame an answer within my place for Eden. Some of this problem comes from the bias of the translators for a Neolithic Adam–a farmer Adam.

First, earth is ‘eretz’ and it really means land/country. This was a land temporarily without plants Some regions of the desciccatted Mediterranean would have been without plants. Rainfall would have been very rare and only water coming down the rivers would wet the land.

the translators translate abad as ‘till’ nine times but it has a meaning of work or serve. Thus, Genesis 2:5 could be read:
there was not a man to work the ground.

Tribal non-farming people work the land, but don’t till the land. So, unless one wants to take the most awful possibility for scripture, one does have alternatives. God placed man initially in a locality (not planet earth) where there were no plants yet. And the man WORKED the ground like non-farming peoples do everywhere and suddenly that big problem disappears. Now, go start a thread on my stupidities and I will show up to talk with you.

tomorrow

I guess you take Genesis literally only when it matches your idea. You have the rivers running into Eden and yet the Bible says:

This sure sounds like Eden was a source and not a sink.

The air has to be warm and moist. And what would provide the lift needed to get enough cooling to cause rain? It would need to rise several thousand to as much as 10 thousand feet. Yes warm air can forced up by a mountain and generate rain but it has wind forcing the air up. How does water, even enough water to fill the Med, push on the air and get it moving?

I personally don’t believe that the Bible makes hardly any legitimate scientific claims. I do believe that the evidence is basically concrete on genesis opening with a ahistorical tale and that throughout the Bible there are other such fantastical non literal tales such as with Jonah and the well and even Esther. I see that same metaphorical technique used by Jesus himself telling parables.

So here is the first reason why I believe it’s inspired by God. As a Christian, I’ve already decided to place my faith in God and that he spoke
To us through his prophets and apostles. So since scripture itself says it’s inspired I accept it by faith. That’s the primary reason.

The second reason is because of the sophistication of the writing itself. There are so many biblically themed pattens that repeats itself several times throughout its stories. Many people , most people, are not even aware because they never do word studies or subject studies.

Are there others that do similar things. Yes. But that does not take away from the fact this one does it and has been doing it longer. 40+ writers over 4,000 years all writing a story that seamlessly flows together despite it changing genres all pointing towards the gospel. That level of attention seems guided and is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit inspired 40+ men to record history and share scripture from their paradigm. It would be like getting 10 different men from different cultures with completely different world views and having them each write a story in their own way

  1. I see the changes it makes in people. I see how it encourages people even in the face of death. I see how early Christians , including those who claimed firsthand knowledge over it. They were willing to be martyred for their faith.

Those are the few main reasons I believe it’s inspired by God.

You have caught me! I will fix that.
I would make the comment that none of what you say, explains how the information on these four rivers describe an actual geography of 5.5 myr ago. Picking at the edges of my poor theory won’t avoid that elephant sitting on the table.

To your question. First let’s be clear what Scripture says. It says “a river went out of Eden to water the garden”. It doesn’t say four rivers; it was a single river… An earlier version of my map had one river comeing out of Eden into a lake the other rivers emptied into. Eden has always been a source. If you look carefully at the diagram I have of Eden in post 2, you will see a red vertical cross on Eden with the label “red marks hill on which water spring existed in Eden.”

So, I do have Eden as a a water source.source contrary to your claim. I do try to take the Scripture as lliterally as I can. In my excitement the last couple of days about learning that the Pison river actually did drain Arabia, I screwed up and didn’t draw it with one river coming out of Eden. Here I go back to something similar to what I had. the only difference is where I put the Pison.


We know there were lakes on the bottom of the basin from geological data so the situation could easily be as shown above.

Now here comes the issue of interpretation… When one looks at meanings of Hebrew or any language’s words, they have a variety of connotations and sometimes two totally different meanings, i.e. the word ‘bound’ in English. Could be ‘A book is bound’ could be ‘the robber bound me’ could be ‘the bound’s of the land’, could be, ‘the mathematical bounds’ of this theorem.’ The translator must chose one he feels is best. That is always subject to bias.

Sadly, I think our translators have done a fine job of chosing the most destructive meanings possible. Even Hebrews knew how water flowed so chosing a way to translate the passage so as to make it impossible seems well, begging the question to me. It is an easy way for someone to make Scripture untrue when there are other alternatives.

The key phrase is: “from thence it was parted, and became into four heads

The word translated ‘parted’ may not have any connotation of flow, just that the channels connected. That is one way to look at it and it doesn’t violate physics. Eden is a source, its one river flows and somehow connects with four other rivers. You may not like my choices, but they do keep Scripture historical (I like the word historical rather than literal. Literal sounds like how a 5 year old understands words).

So what is this business about ‘heads’? Does this mean head waters? If so, that violates physics at least but I don’t think so. Translators used to think that aleph, the word for ‘1000’ in Hebrew, meant ‘1000’. It probably doesn’t . Using that word as meaning one thousand led to impossibly large numbers of people in Egypt and on the Exodus. Today many beleive ‘aleph’ merely means chief, family clan chief, not a thousand people. Doing that, brings the numbers in Numbers (I have a blog on this) down to reasonable values.

It is a shame that the engineering word for pressure in a river or pipe is ‘head’ but while that term might mislead us it doesn’t seem likely that Genesis is speaking about pressure.

I think ro’sh, the word translated as ‘heads’ misleads us. The "AV translates as “head” 349 times, “chief” 91 times, “top” 73 times, “beginning” 14 times, “company” 12 times, “captain” 10 times, "

Head is still used to reference the chief of a corporation. He is Head of Google, but that doesn’t mean he flows water all over the place. The Theological Wordbook of the OT has derivitives of Ro’sh meaning ‘first or primary’. Using this instead of ‘head’ the verse could be meaning:

from thence it was split, and became part of four main rivers.

It might mean only that the waters mixed.

Unless you say my choice of connotations can’t be, or that we must chose the most denigrative translation as the true translation, I do think this generally keeps the passage historical. But thanks for catching my error.

I missed this; Edited to answer cobra

The air has to be warm and moist. And what would provide the lift needed to get enough cooling to cause rain? It would need to rise several thousand to as much as 10 thousand feet. Yes warm air can forced up by a mountain and generate rain but it has wind forcing the air up. How does water, even enough water to fill the Med, push on the air and get it moving?

The basin is filling up with water. That causes the air to rise as it is expelled from the basin, the air has ONLY one way to go—up. Up means cooling. Calculations show that the basin completely filled in less than 2 years, maybe shorter. I calcuate 8 months by noting that the dam failure had to be 3000 ft deep at least because a benthonic plankton which only lives below that water depth was dragged into the basin. a hole 3000 ft deep will have considerable width. I put 15 miles and came up with around 8 months assuming water velocity at the mouth of 15 mph, record water speed in channelized flooding is in the 20+ mph. thus you would have 8 months of constantly rising air coming out of that basin.

Skove, I like your reasons. They won’t work for me. I tend to be Thomas–show me the scars. While we modern christians give Thomas a bad name for doubting, it was the logical thing to do–and every disciple doubted–the Bible says they did. Doubt is not bad, it is creative.

I love how Thomas gets the bad press for doubting, when all of them doubted and all of them got to see the scars.

*While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” *
*37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” *
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.

The Holy Bible: New International Version. (1984). (Lk 24:36–43). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

edited to add I posted my opening post to a board I used to spend a lot of time on. It is a Christian site but was overrun by atheists. I posted it there to see what my atheist friends over there would say about it. They normally swarm like pirhana when they sense a bad argument. I have found over the years that they go silent when they have no answer. So far crickets to how the riverine info got into the Scripture. lol

This thread certainly has a strange title if it is about geology.

You are confused in thinking that I am worried about plants.

The second creation story mentions more than the plants man would grow. There were no wild plants because there was no rain, and there were no domesticated plants because there was no man to work the ground (in context, including irrigation).

The point you seem to be intentionally avoiding is that since the two creation stories literally disagree, they cannot both be literal history. This does not affect inspiration, as a story for a purpose can be inspired but not literal history.

But as you see the first creation story as simply planning, not events, and since you disagree with the order of events in the second creation story—rendering it not actual history—it is inexplicable that you want to make the geography in the second creation story literal history.

Why do you embrace the geography of the second creation story and deny the order of creation in the second creation story?

Here is the deal cobra. I am not obliged to accept your set of assumptions about the nature of those accounts. If I did accept your assumptions then I would draw the same conclusion as you.

You accuse me of avoiding questions, but it seems to draw attention from the fact that you have yet to give your opinion on the question in the OP. How did the Bible get a description of a real geography offset by 5.5 my? Maybe it is time for you to answer a question. Is it Blind chance, divine inspiration or what? I don’t believe in alien space ships. I suspect you don’t either.

I have seen two different maps over the years trying to place the river description in Genesis 2 into ancient historical geography.

The other seemed more realistic, as it did not reverse the flows of the Tigris and Euphrates.

You turned them from East to West.

When the text was written, there is no doubt that the Tigris and Euphrates flowed into the Persian Gulf.

On that basis, as well as on the basis that you reject the rest of the second creation story, I consider your position to be fantasy.

No actually it would go up and out (probably more out than up). There would be prevailing winds to help to move it along. There is nothing that would constrain the air movement to be only up (except for your imignation). And it has to reach a high enough altitude to get the cooling you need for rain.

lol, you still didn’t answer the question. It is geologic fact that these rivers flowed a different direction that long ago.

It seems that what you require of me isn’t required of your preferred view. There is no time in history that Cush and Havilah(where scripture places it), ever matched up with the sources for the Tigris and Euphrates which are miles apart in the mountains of Turkey. Cush is in Africa unless we redifine it to some place no ancient document has it.

In your ‘reasonable’ river scenario, I would love to see how they get a river that encompansses Cush (which is NOT in Arabia or Mesopotamia or Turkey), to join with the Tigris and Euphrates, and do what you want them to do–namely have Eden as the source for these rivers. Such a view of necessity MUST move Cush, Havilah, or both to make them join with the Tigris and Euphratess, sources. I would love to see their article.

While mine might be fantasy, theologians for years have proclaimed the fantasy of any other way of putting these rivers together.

To refresh your memory:
" Some have gone further and claimed the geographical allusion is to a fantasy. For Cassuto, ‘The Garden of Eden according to the Torah was not situated in our world.’ Skinner claimed: ‘it is obvious that a real locality answering the description of Eden exists and has existed nowhere on the face of the earth…(T)he whole representation (is) outside the sphere of real geographic knowledge. In (Genesis 2) 10-14, in short, we have…a semi-mythical geography.’ For Ryle, ‘The account…is irreconcilable with scientific geography.’ Radday believed that Eden is nowhere because of its deliberately tongue-in-cheek fantastic geography. McKenzie asserted that ‘the geography of Eden is altogether unreal; it is a Never-never land.’ Amit held the garden story to be literary utopiansim, that the Garden was ‘never-known,’ with no real location. Burns’ similar view is that the rivers were the entryway into the numinous world. An unusual mixture of views was maintained by Wallace, who held that the inclusion of the Tigris and Euphrates indicated an ‘earthly geographic situation,’ but saw the Eden narrative as constructed from a garden dwelling-of-God motif (with rivers nourishing the earth) combined with a creation motif, both drawing richly from those motifs as found in Ancient Near East mythological literature. " John C. Munday, Jr., "Eden’s Geography Erodes Flood Geology,"Westminster Theological Journal, 58(1996), pp. 123-154,p.128-130

If someone had succeeded in doing a geography for these rivers based upon these guys wouldn’t be saying what they say. Maybe trying something else is a good idea.

Lots of wild conjecture.

For an alternate view on Cush, see the NET Bible notes:

Even Genesis 2 says the Tigris flows east of Assyria.

How do you know the “land of Cush” doesn’t refer to the land of the father of Nimrod, whose name was Cush?

You have to understand how deep that basin was–4-5 km deep. There are WALLS in that basin and until the air tops the walls, Basicaly at current sea level, the air can’t go outward. And convection in the center of the basin will also happen carrying the clouds even higher.

The depths were taken from a gravity model It matters not whether Noah was on those waters, the basin would experience rain like never before seen

And how wide is that basin? It isn’t a chimney.

Back of the envelope calculation here, but using your numbers the water would be rising 2.8 ft/hr or .046 ft/min.

Normal updraft speeds in a thunderstorm are roughly 12,000 to 25,000 ft/min. The normal updraft in fair weather cumulus is 600 ft/min and it doesn’t produce rain.

So the rising water would not contribute to a constant rain.

Back of the envelope. Feel free to check my math.
5 km = 16,404 ft
8 months = 240 days = 5760 hours
16,404 / 5760 = 2.8 ft/hr or .046 ft/min

A convection cell, once started is self sustaining and generally isn’t bigger than a few miles. No it wasn’t a chimney but the air was constrained by the surrounding air which was constrained by the walls of the basin. I calculated if I recall correcty 1/1000ths of the earth’s atmosphere was packed into that basin because of the increase in pressure/density of the air at the bottom.

Sigh, Your calculation assumes that the basin gently fills with no turbulence. There would be all sorts of things going on in this basin. let’s go to Wiki about thunderstorms. They often arise from thermals–differential heating. but without the moisture, they can’t produce rain. The desciccated basin had no moisture to offer for rain (does that remind one of something said in the Scripture?). Secondly the rising air column over such an area with now moisture pouring in from the east would produce some clouds, which would then produce differential heating and thermals.

The average thunderstorm has a 24 km (15 mi) diameter. Depending on the conditions present in the atmosphere, each of these three stages take an average of 30 minutes.[10]

### Developing stage

The first stage of a thunderstorm is the cumulus stage or developing stage. During this stage, masses of moisture are lifted upwards into the atmosphere. The trigger for this lift can be solar illumination, where the heating of the ground produces thermals, or where two winds converge forcing air upwards, or where winds blow over terrain of increasing elevation. The moisture carried upward cools into liquid drops of water due to lower temperatures at high altitude, which appear as cumulus clouds. As the water vapor condenses into liquid, latent heat is released, which warms the air, causing it to become less dense than the surrounding, drier air. The air tends to rise in an updraft through the process of convection (hence the term convective precipitation). This process creates a low-pressure zone within and beneath the forming thunderstorm. In a typical thunderstorm, approximately 500 million kilograms of water vapor are lifted into the Earth’s atmosphere.[11] Thunderstorm - Wikipedia

I bolded the part about the latent heat re-inforcing the updraft, which then becomes self-sustaining. The generally rising air, some cloud formation, differential heating would all combine to produce rain. I can’t believe I am having to debate this issue. Nature is nonlinear and that is what creates thunderstorms. Indeed, he convection cell was the first thing chaos/nonlinear dynamics was discovered in. Go look up Lorenz.

Estimates vary on the speed by which the Atlantic waters shot into the empty basin.

this guy says max was 40m/s. That is 89 mph

This fellow says the Med went up a few meters per day. filling atthe rate of 90 sv. --that is 90 million cubic meters of water per second. the speed of the water depends on the size of the hole.
Computational fluid dynamics simulations of the Zanclean catastrophic flood of the Mediterranean (5.33 Ma) - ScienceDirect

I go into this because one could start the rain by the turbulence started at the Gibraltar strait and have it move eastward, to create the rain. A numerical simulaton of the influx, using a very small opening, which is not deep enough to bring in the ostracod mentioned by Hsu, has the water moving at 100 m/s

that is 200 mph, which would certainly stir up the atmosphere, causing turbulence, at the east, and once a convection cell started, it’s outwash would force further off areas to go down, and after that even further areas it would force air to rise quicker than the average.

I mention the benthonic ostracod. It lives deep and needs a deep entry to the Med, and that means that the flood was quicker than Perianez and Abril suggest. They are generally just over a year with one case at about 4 years.

"These earliest Pliocene strata contain a benthic ostracod fauna, which could only live in ocean bottom below 1,000 m. The associated benthonic Foraminifera are likewise indicative of a deep marine environment of deposition. The fact that of the deep-swimming planktonic genus Spheroidinellopsis is the dominant (up to 90%) microfauna lends further credence to the concept of a deep Mediterranean in the earliest Pliocene." ~ K. J. Hsu, W. B. F. Ryan and M. B. Cita, “Late Miocene Desiccation of the Mediterranean,” Nature, 242, March 23, 1973, p. 240

You are thinking of this as a slight rise in the sea level , but it is far far more than that.

Further counter clockwise eddies in the sea surface would also help get rain started.

The average rise per day means that these storms would have a constant supply of newly uplifed moisture laden air with which to form another convection cell

Edited to add a quote from this fluid simulation paper above: "“Simulations with a simple zero-dimensional model indicated that the Zanclean flood of the Mediterranean Sea, after the Messinian salinity crisis, was a process considerably fast, involving a time scale of the order of one year.” R. Perianez and J. M. Abril, “Computational fluid dynamics simulations of the Zanclean catastrophic flood of the Mediterranean (5.33 Ma),” Paleaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 424(215), p. 59

The Bible says a year for Noahs flood give or take. No Mesopotamian flood could possibly last that long, and it takes anyone floating on it in the wrong direction. We have here a flood that matches the description of Noah’s flood, and everyone hates it. We have here the Bible talking about a geography as it was at the time of this flood, and everyone hates that as well. The curses point to Adam and eve as having smaller brains because , well, pain in childbirth already existed by 1.8 my year ago, so cursing a Neolithic eve with what she already had, makes no sense to me. Do we christians beleive any fact should match anything in the Scripture? I sometimes wonder.

1 Like