You can not have it both ways. Either the Bible is a science book or it isn't, a history book or it isn't, a spiritual book or it isn't! Which do you say it is? Make your choice and let it be that! There are more questions that answers if you choose the first two. Your attempt at trying to predict a slippery slope from your examples does not follow. Your supposition of "if it isn't this, than it must be that" is simply your view point and does not take into consideration of any other explanation. Your assumption is that if the Bible isn't saying what you believe it is saying, than its a lie! Speak for your self, I do not believe that way and find such a simplistic view of the Bible and God as insulting to the brain which he created in me. Your quote , we can agree on, totally, why not leave it at that? My faith does not depend on an event that happened in the past and has virtually little, if any, detail as to the how. The writer left limited details, based on their understanding of the events. The story of the flood was not about the flood, but rather the God of the destruction and his ability to save mankind, a constant recurring theme through out the Bible and concluding with Revelation.

Anyone want to have a go at rebutting my rebuttals of that list of evidences?

If C14 were being produced 30% faster than it is decaying, we would be seeing a rapidly increasing atmospheric concentration of C14. What is actually being observed is a relatively constant level, with a spike in the 1950s due to nuclear testing now beginning to decay away. The model that yields a 30,000 year upper limit for the age of the earth is another creation of Russell Humphreys, I believe, and is easily falisified by just looking at the actual levels of C14 in the atmosphere over the past 60 years or so. If it had been increasing by 30% per year over 60 years it would be almost 7 million times as great as it was at that time.

The 30,000 year limit assumes that the SPR rate has been relatively constant and it merely shows that at some point the total decay rate of all C14 back to N14 should equal the SPR rate withint 30,000 years. Libby is the source for that.

I don't know of any source that refutes that since we know the half life of C14.

As for the fact that C14 is measured to be increasing each year -- Sewell 1999 is one of the sources for that. SPR 18.8 atoms per gram per minute and SDR 16.1 atoms per gram per minute.


in Christ,

Bob

Many of our atheist friends argue that the Bible is nothing more than a book of Aesop's fables -- good morals and lousy facts.

http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16679&category_id=778

But as Bible believing Christians we believe that the source of the text is God -- and that He does know a thing or two about "events" - actual historic events... and can relate those events to humans "with accuracy".

So when God thunders His own law from the top of Sinai and He himself says "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for IN SIX DAYS the Lord MADE.."

We can believe Him. No room for "now God did you want us to believe you as a spritiual authority OR should we believe you as someone who knows what actually happened! -- certainly not BOTH".

in Christ,

Bob

The Bible is a history book not a science book. The only ones that dispute what the Bible says about creation or the Flood are those that have decided to doubt it. The language used is quite clear and repeated throughout the Scriptures by several different authors.

Have a look at the 'Getting The Story Straight' thread.

While it is true that "SIX DAYS you shall labor ... for in SIX DAYS the Lord Made" is a pretty direct statement from the Bible impossible to ignore (unless you parse it out so that one part of the 4th commandment can be ignored while trying to bend and wrench the other part) -- and while it is true that the timeline summary of Creation given in the 4th commandment DOES obviously match the timeline summary given in Gen 1-2:3 -- there are OTHER issues that are up for grabs.

In Gen 1:2 Was the lifeless earth formless and void as a SOMETHING the way we see it in Jer 4:23 during the millennium or was it a nothing in Gen 1:2? These minor points can be debated one way or the other without doing any damage to the "ALL that in them is" claim about God creating all life on earth in the same timline as we find that "SIX DAYS you shall labor".

Which get's us back to your point.

in Christ,

Bob