Promises and Secrets
A website for those not afraid to examine their beliefs, compare them to the real world, and make sure they fit.
Bible: Outdated?
VIEWPOINT
The Bible is God's message to His creation. Through this wordy document we learn about the past, how to live, how to relate to others, and what is to happen to us when the time comes for God to take over again.
FACT
The Bible is a compilation of stories that believers claim to be the truth about the creation of the earth and everything that it contains.
VIEWPOINT
What do you think?
BLUE VIEWPOINT
The Bible is for us, right here, right now.
The human condition, in all its depravity and glory, is the subject of the Bible. Human nature has not changed since Cain got jealous over how close Abel was to the way God thought he should be. How can anything that deals with the nature of man become outdated?
Before you denounce a book given as a guide to life, you should probably read at least part of it. And remember, if you open a book and read one paragraph in the middle of it, how much do you know about the book and what it is trying to say?
Collection of stories
Sure, the Bible is a collection of stories. When you go home and tell your wife or husband how your day went or about some huge event that happened, you tell a story. If you are telling them the truth, they can call someone, read the paper, or turn on the TV to verify what you said. The same goes for the stories in the Bible.
The difference is that the stories in the Bible were not covered by Channel 2 news. These stories are reported by prophets, scribes, and historians like Josephus in documents we find after their deaths. These documents describe events, places and people. Archaeologists have been finding evidence that corroborates these documents for hundreds of years. This verifies that the stories are reporting known, verified facts. Now, compare that to the evolution theory. "Scientists" look around them, see something factual, and make up a story to explain how it got there. Then they use that story to "prove" that it applies to what they see around them.
But, does it make sense?
Sure, they use science to "explain" what they see. If you see a huge canyon with a river running through the bottom of it, how do you explain how the canyon got there? If you are an "evolution scientist" you start from the existing condition and work backward. The river just ate away at the earth a little at a time until it got to where it is today. This is the concept of uniformitarianism - doing the same thing you see happening today for a long time. The problem with that analysis is that it does not cover all the known facts. The explanation stops short of explaining the existence of the canyon, because in the case of the Grand Canyon, the river cannot have started the canyon!
Explain all the evidence, don't just guess
Between the origin of the Colorado river and the continuation of the river to the Gulf of California, the land through which it flows rises higher than its low point before cutting through the Grand Canyon. If you want verification of this fact go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_(U.S.) and look at the section called "Elevation summary". How do the "scientists" explain this? Well, they say there must have been a major crust upheaval at exactly the right time that let the river start cutting a path and then continue on its course.
But, then if that is true...?
Possible? Maybe, but how unlikely. A simpler, straight-forward explanation exists. A lake that at one time existed in the low point was filled to overflowing by, oh, say, a flood, and broke through the natural dam at the point where the Grand Canyon starts. Once the water found a way through the earth dam, it would very quickly cut exactly what we see today in a very short period of time. Once the mountains were washed away on that side, the river could continue to run and cut through the newly opened channel.
The walls of the canyons created around Mount St. Helens look exactly the same and we know how they were created. The "scientists" have a problem with this explanation, though. This gives too much credence to the fact that the Biblical flood did the work of creating the Grand Canyon, and they can have no supernatural explanations of anything.
So, the Bible is not an outdated collection of stories. These stories explain much of what we see in the world around us today. Archaeological finds are showing more and more of them to be true. They provide the basis for rational thought on how we got here and how we should live in order to stay happy while we live here. Why is that so hard to see and accept? It fits so much better than making up a story and changing it every so often because it just doesn't work.
Disagree? Find an error? Contact us at glenjjr@gmail.com and give us your view.
YELLOW VIEWPOINT
The Bible - Opposing View
Tell us your side.
