53
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 59:
Line 59: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of Creation (view source)
Revision as of 23:16, October 24, 2008
, 23:16, October 24, 2008no edit summary
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
==Biblical Inconsistency?==
The article states that "[i]f anyone can show definitely that any part of the Bible is inconsistent with any other part, then he has shown the Bible to be false."
Now this raises a question for me, and I'm hoping someone with more theological background can weigh in on this. Genesis, as I'm sure many people know, contains two creation stories. Gen 1 contains the familiar one, but Gen 2 adds another one. And rather than simply being two different ways of telling the same story, they are overtly contradictory. Gen 1 posits that God created man last (that is, after the animals), whereas Gen 2 says that He created man first. There are other contradictions, as well, but from a scientific standpoint, one is enough to get started. Now, there are two ways I can see us dealing with this problem.
:1) Accept the Bible as the supreme source of spiritual Truth (which is my personal belief) and cede that parts of it are not meant by Him to be taken literally or as history. Thus we acknowledge that the Bible is Truth, but that it cannot be used as a source of scientific authority.
:2) Insist that the Bible is meant to be a totally historical document, accept that it is inconsistent, which violates the claim made in the article (per the article itself), and in turn falsifies the Bible.
I don't know about anyone else, but that second possiblity is personally very disturbing. But the question still remains: where's the other universe? --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 19:16, 24 October 2008 (EDT)