Forum

The Shroud of Turin is the most important artifact for Christianity and is the most studied artifact in the world. So much so, in fact, that the scientific study of the Shroud is a recognized field of study in itself (*Sindonology*). What follows below is a copy-paste of a post I did today on Mind Walk's "Truly Open Forum." An individual was talking about the 1988 radiocarbon results of the Shroud of Turin saying it proved it was a medieval (forgery). I responded with a balanced assessment, saying the results don't add up because the bulk of the evidence favors authenticity, so when the lines don't cross and we have incongruent evidence we have to render an "Inconclusive" verdict (i.e., the radiocarbon results don't trump the rest of the evidence, we simply have data that suggests opposite conclusions, so we can't say anything definitive). I also gave the example of a guy I know--the original photographer on the STURP research team that studied the Shroud. His name is Barry Schwortz and I explained how he is Jewish but is convinced by the evidence that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Christ and he thinks the radiocarbon results must be in error. His website by the way is: https://www.shroud.com/latebrak.htm#papers3 *Anyway, the discussion inspired me to update my knowledge on the subject and in the process I discovered that the evidence isn't as inconclusive as I thought but strongly favors that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. So, I posted a new, updated revised assessment on Mind Walk's forum. Here is the copy of my post. It's a little long, but it will give you an update on the current status of the Shroud: Written in response to another post: The Turin Shroud is a fascinating topic that could easily occupy it's own forum. It's been a while since I've done an in depth literature review, but our discussion inspired me to do so, and needless to say, the results were surprising and the physical evidence stronger than I realized. Thus, after further review, I have to report that my position/assessment has changed to the following: (1) The preponderance of the evidence is that the Turin Shroud is authentic. (2) The 1988 radiocarbon results are not representative of the Shroud, and, therefore, provide us with no information about the Shroud's true age. (3) The results of four other dating methods are consistent with a 1st century origin, and inconsistent with a medieval origin. (4) An accurate radiocarbon test of the Shroud that employs robust protocols still needs to be done. Provenance: In addition to the compelling historical case for the Shroud's presence in Jerusalem, Edessa, Constantinople, and Europe (as well as pollen and a rare type of limestone travertine aragonite that locates the Shroud in the Jerusalem area), extensive DNA sequencing and analysis of the many different types of plant and human DNA (halotypes) found in dust and pollen grains on the Shroud are further consistent with the Shroud's presence in the above localities. Image: The image is not a painting or work of art, and unlike the blood, does not show any evidence of seeping, soaking or liquid capillary flow, but superficially penetrates only a few microns into the 1 or 2 uppermost *fibers* that compose the larger linen threads. The discoloration of fibers that comprise the image is the result of an oxidative, dehydration process that has only affected the outer primary cell wall of the fibers, leaving the internal structure unaffected. The varying intensity of the image results from the density or number of fibers that are discolored in a given area, and not from any change in the color of the fibers themselves (i.e., the discoloration is the same, uniform color throughout). Image Formation: While an exact reproduction of the image remains elusive, UV-radiation from lasers and corona discharge have been able to replicate a number of the Shroud image's properties. In particular, electrical voltage sent through a conductive mannequin (wrapped in a linen shroud matching the Turin Shroud's properties) that was designed to radiate an electrical corona discharge from the mannequin body, created an image of the body on the linen that had negative photographic effects, 3D aspects, and that only superficially penetrated the linen similar to the Shroud image (though not as detailed and accurate). Synopsis: With the Turin Shroud we have a linen burial shroud made by technology consistent with first century linen production that enshrouded a human male body bearing anatomically and medically accurate wounds consistent with Roman scourging and crucifixion, and an additional side wound and scalp puncture wounds consistent with the gospel accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus, evidencing a *cap* of thorns (as opposed to the traditional circular *crown/wreath* of thorns). Evidence of rigor mortis and a lack of any evidence for putrefication (body decomposition) of any kind (commonly seen in other burial cloths) indicates the body was in the Shroud for no more than 40 hours and then removed without causing any disruption (smearing, breakage, distortion, etc.) of the blood stains. Before the body was removed, a superficial image of the body with negative photographic and 3D properties was transferred to the linen via some as of yet undetermined action-at-a-distance radiation process. Experimental evidence indicates that the electromagnetic radiation was in the UV-range, and further suggests that this radiation was emitted from the body via some type of process bearing similar (though not identical) properties to an electrical corona discharge. 1988 Radiocarbon Results: (1) The 1988 test did not follow recommended protocols, including at least 3 samples from different parts of the Shroud (only 1 part of Shroud was sampled) and at least 7 different testing laboratories (which was reduced to 3). There were scientists who formally protested/criticized these deviations in the same journal (Nature) that published the results *before* the radiocarbon test was even conducted. (2) The sample was taken from the Raes corner of the Shroud, which previous scientists had identified as a contaminated section of the Shroud that was unsuitable for radiocarbon dating. Recommendations *against* sampling from the Raes corner had already been made prior to the 1988 radiocarbon test (3) A single linear strip of linen was cut from the Raes corner and then further cut into smaller pieces and given to the 3 testing laboratories in Arizona, Zurich, and Oxford). (4) The 1988 results showed an anomalously high Chi-Square test of 6.4, not found in the control samples. This meant that the 3 laboratory test samples were not homogenous but heterogeneous, and should not have been treated as 3 independent tests of the same thing, but single test results for 3 different things (i.e., among other things, the results of the 3 labs should not have been averaged). (5) Additional evidence of the heterogeneity of the 3 samples has since been confirmed by multiple, independent investigators who have confirmed a statistically significant linear trend in the results that evidence a C14 enrichment mechanism that correlates with distance from the edge of the Shroud. Put another way, the tests were supposed to be 3 independent tests of the same thing. They are not. They are single radiocarbon tests on 3 different (heterogenous) samples, each of which contain different levels of C14 (so, again, it is improper to average the results). Furthermore, the amount of C14 in these samples increases with distance from the edge of the Shroud (again, showing that the laboratories were not given 3 samples of the same thing to independently test, but effectively 3 different samples). (6) As you said, there is NO evidence of an "invisible repair/weave" in the sampled section. (7) However, there is confirmation that secondary cotton fibers not original to the Shroud (and absent from the rest of the Shroud) have been spun *into* the linen in the Raes section (i.e., these are not external cotton fibers on the Shroud surface, but internal). There is confirmed presence of additional substances in the Raes section not found in the rest of the Shroud, including plant type gum adhesives. This evidence demonstrates that the Raes corner where the sample for radiocarbon dating was taken from is atypical and not representative of the Shroud. (8) Additional evidence, including Blue Quad Mosaic and UV-Fluorescent imaging tests further confirm that the Raes area where the sample for radiocarbon dating was taken from is atypical and not representative, and has a different chemical composition from the rest of the Shroud. (9) The UV-Fluorescent results are particularly noteworthy for exhibiting a near perfect correlation (99.3%) with the 1988 radiocarbon results (i.e., the radiocarbon results from each laboratory are almost perfectly predicted by the UV-fluorescence). This suggests that fluorescence predicts carbon date, and amounts to an actual measure of contamination. The Results of Four Dating Methods are Consistent with a First Century Origin: (1) These dating methods include: Vanillin Extinction, FTIR, Raman Spectroscopy, and Elasticity/Modulus Measures of linen fibers (i.e., "Breaking Strength"). (2) Here, I review 1 of the 4: Vanillin Extinction. The lignin in plant material (including linen fibers) includes a substance called vanillin that degrades to 0% over time. The kinetics (i.e., rate of degradation is affected by temperature). Based on these degradation rates, if the Shroud truly dates to 1290-1360 (as the 1988 radiocarbon results suggest), then about 30-40% of the vanillin should still be present. However, if the Shroud dates to the first century, then there should be no (0%) vanillin (More specifically, because degradation rates are affected by temperature, a 0% vanillin result would indicate a date of anywhere between 1,000 BC and 700 AD). *The Raes section still contains vanillin. The rest of the Shroud, however, does not, but has 0%. This result not only provides additional confirmation that the Raes area where the sample for radiocarbon dating was taken from is atypical and not representative of the Shroud, it further shows that the rest of the Shroud is demonstrably older than the Raes section. REVISED ASSESSMENT: The 1988 radiocarbon results were based on an atypical, non-representative sample, and, therefore, do not provide us information about the true age of the Turin Shroud. Thus, an accurate radiocarbon test that employs robust protocols still needs to be done. Scientific conclusions are always tentative, so they can be changed in the future should new evidence warrant it. However, an assessment of the Turin Shroud based on the preponderance of the evidence that we currently do have indicates that the Shroud of Turin is authentic.

Pretty cool video about how extras/cast members were being baptized and coming to Christ on the set of the Jesus Revolution just off camera. I bet you don't see that happening that often on film sets

I recently stumbled across a book I'd forgotten about by eminent Roman historian Ramsay MacMullen called Christianizing the Roman Empire (100-400 AD). He is a secular historian interested in explaining the amazing rapid rise of Christianity to its dominant status in such a short time; replacing pagan religion in just a few hundred years (prior to Emperor Constantine). Most secular historians advance complex theories related to politics, economics, socialization and the like to try to explain the rapid rise and spread of Christianity---a religion that was intolerant of paganism, required exclusive devotion to one God the Father & Lord Jesus Christ, and that taught abhorrent ideas to Jews & Greeks alike (like a 'nonsensical' crucified Messiah 'victorious' through suffering, and bodily resurrection from the dead). The decision to become a Christian and renounce paganism was also not some casual, 'altar call' decision, but adversely affected one's economic and social standing (one's very livelihood), because of how integral pagan religion and sacrifice was to society and economics of the time. Every merchant guild had its own patron gods or goddesses that sacrifices and festivals (and economics!) revolved around. It was difficult to participate in any aspect of society without encountering the problem of paganism. All these circumstances (and others I haven't even touched on) combined to make Christian conversion a very difficult and risky decision---and the rapid rise and spread of Christianity all the more difficult and mysterious to explain by secular historians. As New Testament scholar CFD Moule once famously wrote: "If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole of the size and shape of the Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with?. . . the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church. . . remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the church itself" The resurrection explains the birth and rapid rise of Christianity in the early decades of the first century, but it doesn't address the continued explosive spread of Christianity over the next two to three hundred years. This is the problem secular historian Ramsay MacMullen sought to explain. But unlike most historians, he doesn't advance complicated theories, but simply presents the primary, firsthand accounts in the centuries that followed, and what those accounts say is amazing. Whether Christian or pagan (or even staunch enemies of Christianity), all report the same phenomenon: mass conversions of people as a result of miraculous displays, signs and wonders, healings, and exorcisms (often in power 'contests' that pit the power of Christ against a pagan deity). On the basis of these primary source accounts from Christians and pagans alike, Ramsay concludes that the main reason why Christianity spread so rapidly across the Roman Empire from 100 to 300 AD was due to mass conversions of people as a result of miracles, healings, exorcisms, and the like that they witnessed or heard about from others---mass conversions attested to by both pagan and Christian alike. You don't often find a secular historian who will come to such a conclusion, but to his credit, MacMullen follows the evidence to its logical conclusion (not that MacMullen necessarily believed these were real miracles; but as a historian he is objectively reporting the reasons given for mass conversions in account after account after account in the two hundred or so years following the initial birth of the first century church). On the Christian side, we can add New Testament scholar Craig Keener's massive two-volume tome of several thousand pages documenting phenomenal miracles and the power of God both past and present. The first book is called "Miracles: the Credibility of the New Testament Accounts" & the second is called "Miracles Today," which documents hundreds of stories from countries around the world of documented firsthand accounts of God's continuous miraculous workings even in our midst today---a phenomenon that we can trace all the way back to Jesus and the first century church, as attested to in the New Testament. (Massive books, but highly recommended).

Some thoughts about Genesis 1-3 (stolen from one of my other posts): • Genesis 1 is *exalted prose* (or, *elevated narrative*) (It has poetic and hymnic elements, but yet it is not a poem or hymn, and also contains prose). • Genesis 1 presents ancient cosmology. • Genesis 1 has far more in common with Ancient Near East cosmologies of ancient Egypt, Babylon, Sumerians, Akkadians, etc. then either has with modern cosmology or the modern world, itself. • This does NOT mean Genesis 1 is derived from any of those--and, indeed, although liberal scholars used to argue that Genesis 1 came from the Babylonian Enuma Elish, that has been thoroughly discredited. Instead, it's more accurate to say that Genesis 1 shows knowledge of Ancient Near East culture and their pagan cosmologies, but is dependent on no specific one, similar to how most people in our culture know of Darwin's book the Origin of Species and the ideas in that book, even though most have never actually read it. • In fact, not only does Genesis 1 show great familiarity with Ancient Near East cultural ideas and pagan cosmologies, Genesis is an anti pagan cosmology polemic that directly repudiates and discredits those pagan cosmologies. • There is also evidence that Genesis 1-2:3 presents the creation of the cosmos in the 7-day framework of a temple inauguration ceremony. The evidence for this is strengthened when we expand and look at Genesis 1-3 together. The garden of Eden account makes numerous connections with the tabernacle/temple, giving Adam a priestly/Levitical type function, and relating Eden to the "Holy of Hollies." • Some think the literary structure of Genesis 1-2:3 with it's chiastic/palistrophic structure, and repeated, stylized use of heptads (i.e., the sacred 7, and multiples of the number 7), as well as contextual elements in the passage itself---some think Genesis 1-2:3 could have also had a liturgical use in ancient Israel; a sort of "creation/temple-liturgy." *I remember the first commentary on Genesis I read many moons ago. I was so excited because I knew that finally I had something that was going to answer all my questions about the creation-evolution debate. I was so disappointed because it didn't talk about the creation-evolution debate at all. This was my first taste of what it means when Bible scholars say the Genesis creation account is not a scientific account. Creation-as-Temple-Building-and-Work-as-Liturgy-in-Genesis-1-31.pdf God Dwells Among Us: Expanding Eden to the Ends of the Earth The garden of Eden as a primordial temple or sacred space for humankind Patterns, Parallels, and Poetics in Genesis 1 pdf

@ItsTimeForTim Thank you for your gracious response. I know some posts may seem negative but usually I'm just thinking out loud about questions I'm wrestling with myself. Makes it easy to miss some of my positive posts like: Did-you-hear-about-the-jew-who-believes-jesus-rose-from-the-dead-no-its-not-the-start-of-a-joke? Update-on-the-shroud-of-turin Was-this-the-star-of-bethlehem? But anyway, one thing that's been on my mind lately is the whole should we interpret the Bible "literally" or "figuratively"? I hope my answer will be encouraging, informative to people. But alas, it's not always received that way. But for what it's worth, I'll put it out there. So what do I think about the whole "literal" vs "figurative" debate? I think it's a false dichotomy and the wrong question to ask. It's the wrong starting point, and distracts us from what we really want to know, which is: *what does the text mean and what is the correct interpretation?* And the only way to know that is to first understand the *original context*. It's basic Biblical Hermeneutics 101. I like this diagram of the process: (1) First, determine what it meant then, in order to know (2) what it actually means, so that (3) we know how to correctly apply it today. Even those who argue literal interpretation recognize that sometimes a text actually is figurative, and that you have to look at the context in order to tell. So again, it all goes back to context as the starting point. "Literal or Figurative" is also a false dichotomy. Those aren't the only two choices, nor is it exclusively one or the other. Sometimes there can be a combination of both literal and figurative; historical/narrative prose and poetry in the same passage. Historical narrative can use symbolic, figurative language, and poetry and symbolism can include historical facts and details. And again, we can only tell from the context. There's also a tendency to think figurative or symbolic means it can't be true or real, but, in fact, symbolism is often used to represent real things (we see a lot of this in Revelation. Like the "Lion" and "Lamb that was slain" for Jesus; 'the beast,' 'the dragon' and so forth. Symbols standing for real people, places, events, and things. Here's two examples from Genesis: (1) Genesis 1: The Genesis 1 creation account does not fit neatly into any single genre, but includes elements of BOTH narrative prose and Hebrew poetry (like the stanza-like repeat "And God said," "And it was so," "And there was evening and morning day X"; and a ton of other poetic elements, including chiastic structures--the hallmark of Hebrew poetry; but it also contains a high amount of narrative prose; it has elements of both). That's why some OT scholars like to call it "exalted prose." (2) Adam & Eve: Genesis 2-5 has both symbolic and historical elements. For example, the Garden of Eden story has a ton of figurative, symbolic elements that were well known in the Ancient Near East like the chaos creature (serpent), gardens representing paradise and "sacred space." Notice I didn't say it's allegorical (a symbolic *fictional* narrative often told to make a moral point). It's certainly not an allegory, and saying it has symbolic elements doesn't automatically mean it's not historical. In fact, we are clearly meant to understand that Adam and Eve were historical. The clearest evidence for this is the genealogy in Genesis 5. And then, of course, there are references to real world geography like the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and how Genesis 2 seems to locate the Garden of Eden near the Mountains of Ararat. But while we are meant to understand Adam and Eve as real historical people, at the same time we're also meant to understand them as symbolically representing all of humanity; as shown by their names (Adam literally means man/human; and Eve means life/source of life), and also the fact that "Adam and Eve" can't be their actual, real names (since the Hebrew language didn't yet exist!). And then there are other things, like the fact that the language/phrases used to describe Adam's function of tending the Garden are the same used to describe the function of the Levite priests in the Tabernacle (which held the Jewish Menorah lampstand with its branching shape that that was believed to symbolize the Tree of Life). So Adam is symbolically portrayed as performing a priestly function in tending the Garden. So there's a lot going on. They were real people, but the accounts also contain layers of symbolic theological meaning. So whether one wants to argue that the Garden of Eden and/or Tree of Life & Tree of Knowledge/Wisdom symbolically represent a real point of rebellion in human history of man against God, or instead wants to argue they were a literal garden and trees that symbolically represent "sacred space" communion with God and God as the source of life and wisdom; either way, we can't say it's exclusively literal or figurative---one or the other---but includes elements of both. *Adam and Eve were real life historical people. There was a real Fall/rebellion against God, and this is all communicated through an account that contains real world geographic references as well as rich layers of symbolic theological meaning....And we know this by understanding the original context. Well, that's my take. Feel free to add your two cents (and anyone else who wants to).

Hello! Quite simple, who do you suggest listening to or watching as a Creationist teacher? Also, after your done, try ranking them from best to O.K(Because none of em' are bad are they?) SSSincerely, Snake

I ran into this recently and was perplexed as to what this meant for my view of creationism, but of course there is much more to the story than what is presented in passing oftentimes. I found this article and was encouraged, now I just need to work on creating my own arguments from the findings discussed... Thanks, KoA

Hello! Easily read the title, my Grandpa has me subscribed to that and OYLA(a popular science magazines for teens) I do kno their both Evolution, what are your ideas on them? SSSincerely, Snake

I’d like to hear some opinions on the giants mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. In my church it has been brushed away as “men of large reputations or accomplishments”, such as “Isaac Newton was a giant in the field of science”. The sons of God have been explained as being the godly line of Seth and the daughters of men the worldly offspring of Cain. I’m flat out not buying this. First, the “godly line of Seth” exists nowhere but commentaries. The descendents of Seth are scripturally unidentified as being a “godly line” Secondly, in general the sons of God is a reference to angles, not men (see the book of Job). Thirdly, an unsaved woman having the child of a saved man does not produce a giant, figuratively or literally. I see no reason to reject the clear wording of Scripture about the pre-flood giants. What say you?

Was this the Star of Bethlehem? With the rare conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn--that is being dubbed the "Christmas Star"--set to occur tomorrow night December 21, 2020 on the Winter Solstice, I decided to check up on what I've missed when it comes to the latest theories on the Star of Bethlehem. Unlike the crucifixion of Jesus for which the possible dates are more firm (Friday, April 3, 33 AD--coinciding with a lunar eclipse the same night--being one of two most likely dates; the other in 31 AD); the date of Jesus' birth has been far less certain. With regard to the Star of Bethlehem and what it could have been there have been more than a dozen different theories from meteors to comets to supernovae to triple conjunctions of Jupiter, Saturn and Venus, and more. However, all of these theories encounter one or more problems. Difficulties also arise with the account itself in the gospel of Matthew. Why, for example, do the Magi say they've seen his star in the east, and then travel west? Why is Herod and his entourage in Jerusalem surprised by the Magi's report? Could they not see the star for themselves? How did the star then lead the Magi to Bethlehem (it "went before" them), and then come to stop ("stood over") the place where Jesus was? No celestial object behaves this way. This has led some people to say the star is a legendary addition to the birth narratives of Jesus, or an outright miracle not associated with any natural phenomenon at all. With all the different theories I've heard over the years (and you probably have too), I quit pursuing the topic long ago, chalking it up to one of those things we'll never know the answer to. Little did I know (until today) that there has been a steadily growing consensus over the past decade on what the Star of Bethlehem was--a consensus that also convincingly answers the nagging questions with Matthew's account. Astronomer Michael Molnar is the one to credit for this based on the novel natal horoscope theory he proposed in 1999. It is also yet another example of the importance of knowing the original, intended meaning of a text in its historical context in order to properly interpret and understand. Here's the breakdown: (1) The Magi were astrologers (most likely from Persia), so instead of starting our quest by looking to the sky, we should look to history to learn more about ancient astrologers. (2) It turns out that all the things we consider "Wow!" events like triple conjunctions and supernovae, ancient astrologers had little to no interest in, and things like comets (and eclipses)--well those were just bad omens. (3) The birth of kings were very important in antiquity and to ancient astrologers in particular, who used "natal horoscopes" to mark and predict such events. The natal horoscope of 17 April 6 BC accords with Matthew's account. (4) According to the gospel of Matthew, the Star of Bethlehem indicated the time, place, character and significance of the birth of Jesus. This is the same information that a natal horoscope provides. (5) The Magi's statement in Matthew that they have seen "his star in the east" was a technical phrase in ancient astrology that is equivalent to our "heliacal rising." A "heliacal rising" or simply "rising star" is a star that rises above the eastern horizon at dawn just before the sun rises. (6) On 17 April 6 BC, there was a heliacal rising of Jupiter in the constellation Aries. The constellation Aires was associated with Judea at this time, Jupiter was the regal star associated with royalty, and thus, the heliacal rising of Jupiter on this day would be taken by ancient astrologers as a portent of the birth and rise of a king in Judea. (7) In fact, archaeologists have discovered ancient coins minted around 10 AD that depict this heliacal rising of the Star of Bethlehem (i.e., Jupiter) in the constellation Aries. This is also an event that wouldn't standout--like a comet or eclipse--except to astrologers trained in the observation of such phenomena. Aires the Ram looking back at star (8) Jupiter would appear to gradually shift eastward until August when it would seem to stop and then "went before" westward across the constellation Aries until 19 December 6 BC, when Jupiter would appear to stop and be stationary ("stood over")--and then change direction and move eastward again across the constellation Aries. In fact, "stood over" is also an ancient astrological term that refers to a "star" (in this case, Jupiter) that stops and then reverses direction from westward to eastward. (9) On top of this, the east "star rising" of Jupiter in the constellation Aries on 17 April 6 BC was accompanied by additional signs that together comprised the most "Regal/Divine" set of signs possible in ancient astrology (see below); the occurrence of which is so rare that it only occurs once every 12,000 years or more, meaning this was effectively a one time occurrence in the history of human civilization. (10) Molnar also notes that "there is confirmation from a Roman astrologer that the conditions of April 17, 6 BC were believed to herald the birth of a divine, immortal, and omnipotent person born under the sign of the Jews, which we now know was Aries the Ram. Furthermore, the coins of Antioch and ancient astrological documents show that there was indeed a Star of Bethlehem as reported in the biblical account of Matthew." Here's a couple sites with more info, including a non-technical website Molnar made for the public: https://www.michaelmolnar.com/ https://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1113304946/astronomical-explanations-for-the-biblical-star-of-bethlehem-122414/ Here's one of several formal, professional peer-reviewed articles on the subject: "Astronomical and Historical Evaluation of Molnar's Solution for the Star of Bethlehem" https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.07642 From the Abstract: "In 1999, Michael Molnar put forth a completely new solution, where the Star originated as a report of a natal horoscope for 17 April 6 BC. This natal horoscope shows very impressive regal portents and points to Judea. It is very improbable that such a very rare planet configuration (averaging only once per millennium or longer) would coincide with the very restricted day of Jesus' birth (springtime in a year shortly before Herod's death in 4 BC), unless there is some causal connection."

Did you hear about the Jew who believes Jesus rose from the dead? No, this is not the start of a joke As odd as it may sound, there have been a few orthodox Jews that have also been New Testament scholars. The late Pinchas Lapide (1922-1997) is one such individual. Lapide caused quite a stir with his 1977 book, The Resurrection of Jesus: a Jewish Perspective, when he announced that after careful study of the historical evidence in the New Testament he had become convinced that the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event that really happened. Unfortunately, the stir was mainly confined to academia, so most Christians--indeed, most people!--have never heard about this (Out of curiosity, though, is there anyone here who already knew about this?). Personally, I blame the media, but that's another story (Does anyone else get frustrated by the media's biased, selective reporting and how they ignore things like this but will headline anything that remotely casts Christianity in a negative light?). Strangely, Lapide did not become a Christian (He went on to argue that Jesus is the Messiah to the Gentiles, not the Jews), but his work remains valuable as a "hostile" or adverse source. Of course, I mean "hostile" in the sense of someone who's not a Christian, but testifies favorably about Christianity (Like Barry Schwortz, a member of the original Shroud of Turin research team, who is Jewish but also convinced by the evidence that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus). We already have a ton of great resources on the resurrection, and NT Wright's nearly thousand page book on The Resurrection of the Son of God is the definitive scholarly work on the subject today, so Lapide's book doesn't add to arguments and evidence that we already know about. But Lapide's book is still valuable as a "hostile" source that we can point skeptics to, and a great conversation starter for sharing our faith: "Hey, did you hear about the Jew who believes Jesus rose from the dead?" Here is the description of the book from Amazon and a review of the book below that: The Resurrection of Jesus: a Jewish Perspective (book description): "I accept the resurrection of Jesus not as an invention of the community of disciples, but as an historical event." When a leading orthodox Jew makes such a declaration, its significance can hardly be overstated. Pinchas Lapide is a rabbi and theologian who has specialized in the study of the New Testament. In this book he convincingly shows that an irreducible minimum of experience underlies the New Testament account of the resurrection, however much of the details of the narrative may be open to objection. And here's a short review I found that I have to give credit to, because it really is the best attention-getter intro I've seen on the subject (and which I borrowed for the title of this OP): https://christopherbrown.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/a-jewish-perspective-of-the-resurrection-of-jesus/ Did you hear about the Jew who believes Jesus rose from the dead? No, it’s not a joke. I just finished reading a fascinating book by Pinchas Lapide called The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective. Lapide (1922-1997) was a non-messianic Orthodox Jew who believes that Jesus really did rise from the dead. And he gives an impressive set of reasons to support that belief, all connected to the identity of Jesus and the Twelve as faithful Jews..... .....[Lapide] goes on to offer an analysis of the New Testament accounts of the resurrection which defend it as well as any Christian apologetic I’ve ever read: The fact that women are reported as the first to find the empty tomb, despite the fact that women’s testimony was considered invalid in those days, gives the story credibility. The content and language of Paul’s resurrection account in 1 Corinthians 15, which was passed on to him by the first witnesses, contain numerous un-Pauline phrases and a distinctively Hebrew style of writing, implying that Paul really is passing on in rough translation exactly what was passed on to him....

Found a great article today on Creation Ministries International website that updates understanding and clarifies which YEC arguments should and shouldn't be used anymore. I was surprised by some of the things on their list. Here's a link to the web page, which includes additional information about the motivation and reasoning for their list. Table of contents Which arguments should definitely not be used? Darwin recanted on his deathbed Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes NASA faked the moon landings The earth is flat Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in ‘old’ strata invalidate the geologic column Dubois renounced Java man as a “missing link” and claimed it was just a giant gibbon The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today? Women have one more rib than men Archaeopteryx is a fraud There are no beneficial mutations No new species have been produced Earth’s axis was vertical before the Flood Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed Archaeologists have found skeletons (and footprints) of giant human beings Darwin’s quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species. Earth’s division in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents There are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 so the Earth may be 10,000 years old or even more Jesus cannot have inherited genetic material from Mary, otherwise He would have inherited original sin Laminin: an amazing look at how Jesus is holding each of us together Light was created in transit The phrase ‘science falsely so called’ in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution Geocentrism (in the classical sense of taking the Earth as an absolute reference frame) is taught by Scripture and Heliocentrism is anti-Scriptural Ron Wyatt has found Noah’s Ark Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’ Missing solar neutrinos prove that the sun shines by gravitational collapse, and is proof of a young sun Einstein held unswervingly, against enormous peer pressure, to belief in a Creator Canopy theory What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use There are living dinosaurs today There was no rain before the Flood Natural selection as tautology Evolution is just a theory There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology The speed of light has decreased over time There are no transitional forms Gold chains have been found in coal Plate tectonics is fallacious Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution The Gospel is in the stars

Hello all, I'm looking to see what the latest is on the Cambrian Explosion in terms of creation/evolution research. I know it corresponds well with creation day 5 from a creationistic point of view, but that recently there have also been some papers suggesting that the Cambrian Explosion actually does verify evolutionary theory. All the same I am struggling to see how new discoveries of soft-bodied invertebrates in the Edicaran suddenly explains the explosion of 50-80% of all animal phyla ever (including a few vertebrates) to ever exist. I have heard the argument that invertebrates likely had quicker turn-around times generationally, which is what allowed things like trilobites to so quickly diversify, but seeing as how so many creatures suddenly started fitting into niches that had never been populated before (or even existed if we look at things like the erosion associated with the Great Unconformity and its affects on the ocean), an example would be both benthic and pelagic environments being inhabited all at once during the Cambrian, I am struggling to see how this theory works. I'm a little all over the place I know (I'm tired...), but I'm debating an evolutionist over the subject and am wanting to hear from those more knowledgeable than myself here. Thanks, KoA

I was wondering what problems have you encountered with reconciling the Bible with Darwinian Evolution? One problem I have is in Genesis it says "God said...and it was so" rather than "God said and after billions of years of evolutionary processes it was so"A second problem is in Genesis 3 after the fall God says "you were made from dust, and to the dust you will return" (Genesis 3:19) and NOT "you were made from a pre-human hominid and to a pre-human hominid you shall return".What difficulties have you found in trying to reconcile Theistic Evolution with the Bible?

Saw this quote today. Might be interesting to explore more in depth how Walton comes to this conclusion. But first, I was curious to hear people's thoughts on this claim. Agree? Disagree? Other thoughts? "The most central truth to the creation account is that this world is a place for God's presence."---John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate

Ok, we all have read Genesis 1 many times. We’ve all talked about it to others. Many of us have preached series’ on it. All throughout the chapter we see the phrase “And God said.....” and the phrase “and there was.....”. For example...1:3 And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And so we all say God “spoke” the universe into existence. I know I’ve said it countless times. But is it actually what happened? John 1:3 says that by Jesus everything that was made, was made. Hebrews 1:2 , speaking about the Father’s creation, in reference to Jesus said “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;” Hebrews 1:10 “And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hath laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thy hands:” I’d does appear to me possible that the “And God said/and there was” statements of Genesis 1 actually mean that God directed (said his wishes) to our Lord Jesus and Jesus physically made them. Not really what we generally mean when we say “spoken into existence”. More of a “The Father spoke and the Son did” thing. I think of the centurion who said to one man ‘go’ and he goeth and to another ‘do this’ and he doeth it. What sayeth the the group?

Comets—portents of doom or indicators of youth? by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati Comets have long fascinated (and often horrified) mankind. They seem to come from nowhere, and disappear just as suddenly. Their tails seem to dwarf other heavenly bodies. Anatomy of a comet: Looking ‘inside’ a comet shows just how they are made up. A small icy core is the fuel for a massive and often spectacular ‘tail’ seen to flow from the head of a comet. Eventually, the nucleus will lose all its mass as it orbits the sun and ceases to exist. The short life of comets is testimony to the short age of the solar system and planets. Click for larger view People viewed them as portents of disaster, and indeed a comet appeared about the time of the futile Jewish revolt against the Romans in AD 66, which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70; and before the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Triumph of Biblical worldview over astrological superstition However, instead of trying to tell fortunes from the heavenly bodies (astrology), we should gain information from their Creator, in His written Word, the Bible. It was the Biblical worldview which led to the science that explained comets. The Bible teaches that the universe was made by a God of order (1 Corinthians 14:33), who gave mankind dominion over creation (Genesis 1:26–28). Historians of science, regardless of their own religious faith, from Christians to atheists, acknowledge the vital importance of the Christian worldview in the rise of modern experimental science. For instance, Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) formulated the laws of planetary motion. Kepler calculated a creation date of 3992 BC (even younger than the famous date of 4004 BC calculated by his contemporary, Archbishop James Ussher (1581–1656)). Then Isaac Newton (1643–1727), widely regarded as the greatest scientist of all time, developed the laws of motion, gravity and calculus. But he wrote more on Biblical history, and vigorously defended Ussher’s chronology.1 Newton’s friend Edmond Halley (1656–1742) applied these laws to about 25 observed comets and showed that they followed predictable paths. In particular, he noticed that a comet he observed in 1682 followed an orbit very much like that of similar comets seen in 1531 and 1607. So he realized that it was really the same comet reappearing at intervals averaging 76 years. This was also the comet that appeared in 1066, AD 66, and also 12 BC, a few years before Christ was born.2 When he successfully predicted that the comet would appear in a particular year (after his death), this was seen as a great triumph for Newton’s theories, and the comet was deservedly named after Halley. Relationship of planetary orbits and comet’s orbit. Note that the comet’s tail always points away from the sun. Origin of comets The Word of the Creator of the comets, which inspired the development of the science that demystified them, also tells us when He made them. In Genesis 1:14–19, He told us that He made the sun, moon and stars on Day 4 of Creation Week, which was about 4000 BC, as Kepler and Newton realized. Since the Hebrew word for star, כוכב (kokab) refers to any bright heavenly object, it presumably includes comets as well. The features of comets make perfect sense in a Biblical timescale, but are a huge problem for evolution/billions of years. Because all age indicators work on assumptions, the argument here is not claimed as ‘proof’ of a ‘young’ solar system. Because of the reliable eye-witness account of the Creator in the Bible, the young age is accepted. And this article, among many others,3 shows that even under the evolutionists’ own assumptions, there are huge problems for their timescale. What are comets? Comets are ‘dirty snowballs’ (or ‘dirty icebergs’4,5 that revolve around the sun in highly elliptical orbits They are usually a few km across, but Halley’s is about 10 km (6 miles). Hale-Bopp, seen in 1997, at about 40 km (25 miles) is one of the largest comets known. They contain dust and ‘ice’, which is not just frozen water but also frozen ammonia, methane and carbon dioxide. How comets shine—problem for long-agers When comets pass close to the sun, some of the ice evaporates, and forms a coma typically 10,000–100,000 km (rarely up to one million km) wide. Also, the solar wind (charged particles radiating from the sun) pushes a tail of ions (electrically charged atoms) directly away from the sun. Solar radiation pushes away dust particles to generate a second tail that curves gently away from the sun and backwards. This fascinating image was taken by the ESA Giotto mission in 1986, and shows the nucleus of the famous Halley’s Comet, which appears every 76 years. Ice and dust particles are seen here to be streaming from the surface of this odd-shaped object, currently estimated to be about 10 km across. The spacecraft Giotto was armoured with an impact dust shield consisting of a 1 mm thick aluminium plate and a 12 mm-thick kevlar sheet separated by a 25 mm gap. Fourteen seconds before its closest approach of 596 km, Giotto was hit by a ‘large’ particle of dust which caused a minor deviation in its angle and damaged several instruments including the camera, which ceased operating. The coma and tails have a very low density—even the best vacuums produced in laboratories are denser. The Earth passed through a tail of Halley’s comet in 1910, and it was hardly noticeable. But comets reflect the sun’s light very strongly, which can make them very spectacular when they are close to both the sun and Earth. The appearance like a hairy star is responsible for the term ‘comet’, from the Greek word κομητης comētēs (long-haired) from κομα (coma) = hair. This means that the comet is slowly being destroyed every time it comes close to the sun. In fact, many comets have been observed to become much dimmer in later passes. Even Halley’s comet was brighter in the past.6 Also, comets are in danger of being captured by planets, like Comet Shoemaker–Levy crashing into Jupiter in 1994, or else being ejected from the solar system. A direct hit on Earth is unlikely, but could be disastrous because of the comet’s huge kinetic (motion) energy. The problem for evolutionists is that given the observed rate of loss and maximum periods, comets could not have been orbiting the sun for the alleged billions of years.7,8 Comet impact Some evolutionists believe comets have caused mass extinctions. The mysterious aerial explosion in Tunguska, Siberia, in 1908, which flattened over 2,100 km2 (800 sq. miles) of forest, has been attributed to a comet, but no people were killed because the area was unpopulated. However, more recently, some geologists proposed that it was caused by a large amount of underground gas being released into the air and exploding.1 Jones, N., Did blast from below destroy Tunguska? New Scientist 175(2359):14, 7 September 2002; Past blast—future date? Creation 25(1):8, 2002. Interestingly, 14C ‘dating’ of soil shows a future date! Two groups of comets Comets are divided into two groups: short-period (<200 years) comets, such as Halley’s (76 years); and long-period (>200 years) comets. But the comets from the two groups seem essentially the same in size and composition. Short-period ones normally orbit in the same direction as the planets (prograde) and in almost the same plane (ecliptic); long-period comets can orbit in almost any plane and in either direction. One exception is Halley’s, which has retrograde motion and a highly inclined orbit. Some astronomers suggest that it was once a long-period, and strong gravity from a planet dramatically shrunk its orbit, and thus the period. So long-period and Halley-type comets are grouped together and called ‘nearly isotropic comets’ (NICs). The highest period of a stable orbit would be about four million years if the maximum possible aphelion (furthest distance of an orbiting satellite from the sun) were 50,000 AU.9 This is 20% of the distance to the nearest star, so there’s a fair chance other stars could release the comet from the sun’s grip.10 However, even with this long orbit, such a comet would still have made 1,200 trips around the sun if the solar system were 4.6 billion years old. However, it would have been extinguished long before. The problem is even worse with short-period comets. Empty evolutionist explanations The only solution for evolutionists is hypothetical sources to replenish the supply of comets: Oort cloud The best-known hypothetical source is the Oort cloud, after the Dutch astronomer Jan Hendrik Oort (1900–1992) who proposed it in 1950. This is allegedly a spherical cloud of comets extending as far as three lightyears from the sun. It is proposed as a source of long-period comets. Passing stars, gas clouds and galactic tides are supposed to be able to knock comets from the Oort cloud into orbits entering the inner solar system. But there are several problems: No observational support.11 Therefore it’s doubtful that the Oort Cloud should be considered a scientific theory. It is really an ad hoc device to explain away the existence of long-period comets, given the dogma of billions of years. Collisions would have destroyed most comets: The classical Oort cloud is supposed to comprise comet nuclei left over from the evolutionary (nebular hypothesis) origin of the solar system, with a total mass of about 40 Earths. But a newer study showed that collisions would have destroyed most of these, leaving a combined mass of comets equivalent to only about one Earth, or at most 3.5 Earths with some doubtful assumptions.12,13 The ‘fading problem’: The models predict about 100 times more NICs than are actually observed. So evolutionary astronomers postulate an ‘arbitrary fading function’.14 A recent proposal is that the comets must disrupt before we get a chance to see them.15 It seems desperate to propose an unobserved source to keep comets supplied for the alleged billions of years, then make excuses for why this hypothetical source doesn’t feed in comets nearly as fast as it should. There are many historical records of sightings of comets, which were often regarded as portents of disaster.  Perhaps the most famous is in the Bayeux Tapestry  about 70 m (230 ft) long and 0.5 m (20 inches) wide.  It depicts the events leading up to and including the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066, where the Duke of Normandy, William (the Conqueror), defeated the Saxon King, Harold. The tapestry was commissioned by Odo, Bishop of Bayeux and Earl of Kent, William’s maternal half-brother.  In one frame (above) there are the words, ‘Isti mirant stella’, Latin for ‘They wondered at a star’, and a stylized picture of what we now know was the AD 1066 appearance of Halley’s Comet.  At the time, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle stated, ‘… all over England there was seen in the sky such a sign as men had never seen before.’ Kuiper Belt The Kuiper Belt is supposed to be a doughnut-shaped reservoir of comets at about 30–50 AU (beyond Neptune’s orbit), postulated as a source of short-period comets. It is named after Dutch astronomer Gerald Kuiper (1905–1973), sometimes considered the father of modern planetary science, who proposed it in 1951. To remove the evolutionary dilemma, there must be billions of comet nuclei in the Kuiper Belt. But nowhere near this many have been found—only 651 as at January 2003.16 Furthermore, the Kuiper Belt Objects discovered so far are much larger than comets. While the diameter of the nucleus of a typical comet is around 10 km, the recently discovered KBOs are estimated to have diameters above 100 km. The largest so far discovered is ‘Quaoar’ (2002 LM60), with a diameter of 1,300 km (800 miles), which orbits the sun in an almost circular orbit17 [Ed. note: Sedna, discovered on 14 November 2003 and reported on 15 March 2004, after this article was written, is probably larger]. Note that a KBO with a diameter only 10 times that of a comet has about 1,000 times the mass. So in fact there has been no discovery of comets per se in the region of the hypothetical Kuiper Belt, so it so far is a non-answer.18 Therefore many astronomers refer to the bodies as Trans-Neptunian Objects, which objectively describes their position beyond Neptune without any assumptions that they are related to a comet source as Kuiper wanted. Interstellar origin of comets The idea that comets come from outside the solar system has been almost universally abandoned (see box). Summary Comets are not portents of doom, but are objects God created on Day 4. The successful prediction of comet appearances was an early triumph for modern science, inspired by a Biblical worldview. Comets lose so much mass every time they shine that they could not be billions of years old. Evolutionists propose various sources to replenish the comet supply, but there is no real observational evidence, and numerous unsolved theoretical difficulties. Therefore comets make much more sense under a Biblical timescale.

TO POST OR NOT TO POST: MY BEST ATTEMPT TO GIVE HONEST APPRAISALS ABOUT SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE (That Everyone will Find Something to Disagree with) I really appreciate the attitude displayed in this forum. Proof that Christians of diverse viewpoints can share and discuss and challenge each other to grow and even agree to disagree, but without becoming divisive. It sounds like we're all in the same boat together: we're all just trying to figure things out. I obviously dont have all the answers, but I can share what I've learned during my own journey in the hopes that it may bless others. This topic has been a life time of study for me that I have mulled over for decades, interacting with top Bible scholars and scientists on the subject, and considering every possible interpretation and approach and "angle" to Genesis imaginable, and in the process of my journey also earning two degrees along the way (in biology and paleontology). As one of my past professors said, "There's good news and bad news for everyone in the fossil record." I think you'll find the same here. I imagine everyone will find something to disagree with in what I have to say. Who knows, it might even get me banned from the forum. In fairness though, I'm "none too happy" either with some of the things I have to report. Some of the things I've learned during my journey are not what I wanted to hear. But I'm committed to being honest. So, what follows is my best attempt to be honest when it comes to everything on this subject: the good, the bad, and the ugly. I've divided this into two parts. Part 1 is my honest, best effort to communicate to everyone where we are when it comes to the science of things. Part 2 is my best effort to communicate the same for the Bible. For Part 2, I don't profess to have the final word on Genesis, but I do present what I believe is the only way we can possibly approach Genesis if we want to have a true and accurate understanding that is also faithful to Scripture. While questions will remain, I will also provide what I believe to be a possible way forward through it all, and a look at the unifying thread that biblically connects everything from Genesis to Revelation. So, without further ado, here are the most honest statements I know how to make on the subject of Science and the Bible. PART 1: SCIENCE: (1) Origin of Universe: The standard "Big Bang [Expansion]" model of the universe is a successful scientific model because it explains/accounts for a number of key observations about our universe, including the universe's expansion, cosmic background radiation, and the percentage of elements in our universe (particularly hydrogen, helium and lithium). While still inconsistent with a YEC position, the Big Bang model has actually reduced the age of the universe to about 13.7 billion years old (In the past, some scientists thought the universe could be up to 100 billion years old!). It also suggests our universe is finite and has not always existed, which, in turn, would seem to require a cause for its existence. William Lane Craig uses this to support part of his Kalam Comological Argument. (2) Age of Earth/Universe: The scientific evidence for old-ages is pretty overwhelming and supported by multiple, independent lines of confirming evidence. Occasional anomalies exist, but none significant enough to challenge, invalidate or overturn the evidence for long-ages. (3) Geologic/Fossil Records: Geologists no longer assume that all rocks formed by slow, uniform rates of deposition ("uniformitarianism"), but use evidence to determine whether a given rock layer was formed "slowly," "rapidly," or somewhere in between. Modern geologists recognize that there have been large scale mega-floods during earth's history. However, we have no evidence for a global flood. Progressive creationism is currently the only creationist view that can potentially account for what we see in the geologic/fossil records. (4) Biological Evolution: "Darwinism," "Neo-Darwinism/Modern Synthesis," "gradualism/gradual" step-by-step evolution by "random mutations and natural selection," "missing links," "just-so" stories, etc.----Pretty much ALL of these (and YEC arguments against these things) you can pretty much throw all of these things in the garbage. Modern biology has moved past all this, so arguments against these things are now strawman arguments. Natural selection is still important but no longer assumed (it must be demonstrated by rigorous standards), and not every physical trait is believed to be an adaptation that is the result of natural selection. Numerous, multiple mechanisms are now recognized. The *Extended Evolutionary Synthesis* (EES) is the new "game" in town (NOT "Darwinism," or "Neo-Darwinism," or "gradualism"). A barrage of discoveries over the past few decades in microbiology and genomics have revolutionized understanding in biology. Believe it or not, these discoveries have provided stronger evidence for common ancestry than ever before, overwhelming evidence for macroevolution (speciation = origin of new species), and an array of empirically demonstrated mechanisms that can operate "gradually" or by rapid, large scale genetic changes without killing the organism. Mutations are no longer seen as "accidents." There is now a staggering amount of evidence that most mutations seem to be under biologic control. In short, there's now mountains of empirical evidence that living organisms actually have built in mechanisms that enable them to restructure and self-modify their genomes to varying degrees. In short (and I know people won't like to hear this), evolution has never been on firmer, more solid evidentiary footing than it is today....BUT (5) Origin of Life: .....while evolution now seems easier to accomplish than ever before due to these built-in "evolvability" mechanisms that living organisms have, the flip side is that it has made the origin of these mechanisms and the origin of life all the more difficult to explain. Breakthroughs in understanding the intricate complexity and biological information/infomation-processing nature of life, has widened the gulf between the living and non-living worlds enormously and it would be accurate to say that science currently has no clue and no plausible naturalistic mechanism to explain the origin-of-life. *Although, I don't think concordism is the correct way to go (see Part 2), some possible considerations for biblical concordists include: (1) Did God create living things with the ability to evolve/change? (2) Instead of seeing evolution as something "evil/atheistic," could it instead be a testament to God's amazing power and creativity? (3) Genesis says things were created and reproduce according to their "kinds," but does it say that things couldn't change and diversify further after this? (Note: even with evolution, things STILL always reproduce according to their species "kind"). (4) Should no-death-before-the-fall be revisited? Is it possible (at least for NON-human life) that death is a natural, created part of the life/the life cycle? PART 2: THE BIBLE (1) Hermeneutics: There are many important principles, but one of the most important principles for proper interpretation of Scripture is to *first* understand what a given passage would have meant to the original "audience" or hearers of the word. Only then, can we begin to start asking how it applies today. (2) The Error of Anachronisms: Too often, we impose our modern understanding on Scripture (so easily without even realizing that we're doing it) instead of first determining what the text would have meant to the original hearers/readers. This has led to all kinds of countless errors in biblical interpretation, starting with our picturing a planet earth globe in our heads when we read "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." No one in ancient times hearing/reading Genesis for the first time would have ever pictured or thought of the earth in that way---this is OUR modern conception of planet earth that we (unintentionally) impose upon Scripture. (3) The Error of Concordism: What this means is that pretty much any and all attempts to accord Genesis with our modern understanding (including trying to make it fit with science OR vice versa) are wrong, incorrect ways to approach Genesis. For example, we have scientific evidence for the Big Bang and it's entirely possible that God could have created the universe this way, but Scripture CAN'T be used to support this (even if it is correct), because it's a modern idea. Put another way, it's impossible that "Let there be light" is a reference to the Big Bang, because no one--none of the original readers/hearers--in ancient times would have ever thought that that's what this verse meant. That would mean that divine revelation is only for us in modern times, and completely meaningless for the thousands of years of humanity before us. (4) Science and the Bible are "Apples & Oranges": This further means that there is absolutely NO need for the Bible and science to fit with each other, because Genesis was written to an ancient audience, not a modern, scientific one. Genesis isn't concerned about science and modern understanding--we're the ones who care about such things and wrongly put those burdens and expectations on Scripture. So, to correctly understand Genesis we need to understand what it would have meant to its original audience. Then, and only then, will we be able to see how it applies to us today. (5) "Yom" ("Day") Can't Mean Long Periods of Time, but Must Refer to a Normal Day: Because an ancient audience would never have understood each "day" to be millions or billions of years long. However, this does not conflict with modern science, because science and the Bible are "apples and oranges" and don't have to fit with each other---Genesis is not a scientific account, but divine revelation that was first given to an ancient audience. *Also, "day" is NOT the important part of the story (the 7-day "week" is far more important because of its relationship to the tabernacle/temple and God's presence....but that would take longer to explain). *Also, it's important to understand that while "yom" must be a normal day, that it still might be functioning as a literary, organizing device (as opposed to a doctrinal statement about the age of the earth---which actually misses the point of Genesis). And, in fact, there is a literary, parallel structure in the Genesis creation account that connects Day 1 with Day 4; Day 2 with Day 5; and Day 3 with Day 6. (6) The Genesis Creation Account Uses the Erroneous View of the World that Ancient People Believed in as a Vehicle to Communicate Divine Revelation: It seems that God cares more about us having a correct understanding of God, than having a correct view of nature. God does not seem too concerned about us having accurate knowledge about the world, but an accurate knowledge of Him. So, instead of correcting the ancient world's erroneous understanding of the world, God communicates his divine revelation about Himself via the common beliefs of the time and, thus, in a way that they would understand (even though their conception of the world was erroneous). This actually makes more sense, because imperfect humans can NEVER have a truly accurate and complete understanding of the universe. If God were to accurately "explain" everything to us, we would still never be able to fully comprehend it. And if God waited for us to attain such an understanding, before giving us divine revelation, then He'd still be waiting to give it. *Take, for example, Day 2 when God creates the firmament expanse to separate the waters above from the waters below. The "waters above" is not a water vapor canopy. No one in ancient times would have thought that. They believed that rain came from a water "storehouse" of sorts up in the sky that would periodically allow water to rain through like a "sieve," so to speak. They also believed that the sun, moon and stars were in a solid firmament BELOW this "storehouse" of rainwater (*which is where Genesis also puts the sun, moon, and stars in Day 4--IN the firmament BELOW the "waters above" where rain comes from). So, instead of correcting this erroneous understanding of the world, God uses it to communicate true divine revelation about Himself. *This example can be used to illustrate a number of common interpretive mistakes we make with Genesis today. Not trying to pick on anyone, but here we see even YECs "compromising" or "caving-in" to science "at the expense" of Scripture: The "waters above" are not a water vapor canopy or water out past all the galaxies at the edge of the universe where we can't see it (like many YECs say today)--IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE MODERN SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING (*Afterall, Scripture puts the sun, moon, and stars in the earth's atmosphere, so science MUST be wrong when science tells us that these things are in space. Right? At least, that's the type of argument that is typically made when science and the Bible are pitted against each other). Yet, no one in ancient times would have thought that's what Day 2 & 4 meant (*And it would also make it a meaningless fact beyond our reach way out in space that has absolutely no significance for us today; prompting the question, "Why are you telling us this, God, that there's a bunch of water way out at the edge of the universe? How is this important for us to know?"). Instead, the original readers/hearers would have immediately recognized and understood this (albeit erroneous) picture of the world---that had the sun, moon, stars in the firmament BELOW the rain water stores---because that's what they believed in ancient times. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Day 2 & 4 are, in fact, depicting this ancient understanding of the world. So, in order to accurately interpret Scripture we too, likewise need to understand and recognize that Day 2 & 4 are depicting this ancient (albeit erroneous) understanding of the world and using it to communicate divine revelation. This shows (no offense) that EVEN YECs have their limits and ultimately "cave" to modern scientific understanding by IMPOSING a modern scientific understanding of the world on Scripture that was never there to begin with, when Scripture is saying something else entirely by communicating divine revelation to an ancient audience in terms that they could understand. *Otherwise, our typical "understanding" of Genesis would only be divine revelation for us. Think about it. Think about all the different interpretations Christians have today about Genesis--including the YEC view that the "waters above" must be water way out in space out past all the galaxies at the edge of the universe. Such views would be absolutely meaningless to people in ancient times. There's no way they would come away with that "understanding." There's no way that that would be the "take home message" they come away with after reading/hearing Genesis. We didn't even know there were galaxies until quite recently. We didn't even know we were in the Milky Way Galaxy or that there were other galaxies in addition to the Milky Way until around the early 1900s. Imagine if we were transported back in time to ancient Israel. Imagine trying to explain all our "understandings" of Genesis. They would have no idea what we were talking about. Words like "galaxy" would have no meaning to them. *The Bible is the ongoing story of God reaching down to us and accommodating us as finite beings with limited understanding by communicating to us in ways that we can understand, with the ultimate example of this being God-incarnate-in human form. What better way could there be for us to understand? (7) Divine Revelation in Genesis: So what, then, are we supposed to take away and learn about God from Genesis? For the sake of time and without getting into details, I will cut to the chase. We learn that: there is a Creator God who created everything; that unlike other ancient gods, this one true God has no needs, is dependent on no one, is separate and not part of creation but the Creator of all creation; that He creates/brings order and purpose to chaos and disorder; that He has given us provisions and established a working, functional order by establishing time, weather, food, etc., and created humans to be His representative emissaries and image-bearers of God, and that when he finished creating an ordered, functional cosmos that He didn't just leave us but on the 7th day inhabited His own creation, so that His creation is now a "cosmic temple" for His abiding Presence with us...and a lot more....In Genesis 2, we see how God further orders and establishes in this "cosmic temple" a "sacred space" (garden in Eden). *If there is one, single uniflying thread throughout the Bible that goes from creation to the garden of Eden, to the Exodus to the tabernacle to the temple to the Word (Jesus) that became flesh and "tabernacled" among us to the ripping of the temple veil at the crucifixion to the end of time in Revelation where we see the "sacred space" of Eden restored, it is: The PRESENCE OF GOD--how it was established, how we lost it, what God did to restore it, and how we can always have it forever and ever (Amen) *Of course, I've had to skip over a lot of details, but I hope all this information provides a framework and way forward through this complicated topic that will be of help to people.

can anyone help me with rocket science, i am trying to learn

Does the fact Moses bases the Sabbath rest on the seventh day on a literal six day creation (Ex.20:11) have implications for how we understand the Creation accounts in Genesis 1-2?