I do and is the position of my church.

 

:thumb:

The Sumerians were gone, or on their way out by the time of Noah. The story is older and takes place earlier in history.

 

Curious on how you know this.

Why do you believe that? There is no biblical basis for that belief.

 

It does not say that anywhere in the scripture, and by the way, when Timothy wrote he didn't consider his writing scripture, so the only thing Timothy could have meant by scripture was what was known at the time, and that isn't even the entire "Old Testament".

 

I'm not trying to nitpick, but Timothy didn't write any scripture. The book (or epistle) of Timothy was a letter written by Paul to Timothy. It doesn't change the discussion to much degree, but the OCD in me just wouldn't let me leave it unmentioned. Sorry. :thumb:

Curious on how you know this.

 

The Sumerian and other Mesopotamian mass flood stories date to the 17th century BC, while I believe it is widely accepted that Noah's Ark is dated to around the late 13th century BC.

To say yes to the question, means God is not capable of preventing his message from being changed over centuries. I prefer to think that God is more powerful than that.

 

Again, I believe the Holy Spirit has been involved in making sure the message of God is complete and accurate as God wants it to be.

next question- Then wouldn't he have a prophet to set things straight?

 

Amos 3:7

"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

 

Once again not challenging anyone- interested in opinions/thoughts

Curious on how you know this.

 

I was a world history teacher for 13 years.

 

The babylonians vanquished/assimilated the Sumerians (the first group of people who could be called a civilization) around the 3rd millenium BC. The oldest known version of the the Epic of Gilgamesh (with a great flood) is dated around 2150-2000 BC. Old testament writings were collected around 800 BC. Nearly all of the Ancient civilizations (many existing prior to the Hebrews) had stories of the Great Deluge.

 

 

Just a quick search on Wikipedia . . . cool info., a lot of this is true about many great old testament stories . . .

 

The mysterious figure of Enoch is the beginning of a fascinating but inconclusive web of correspondences and similarities between the story of Noah and older Mesopotamian myths. According to Genesis 5:24, at the end of his 365 years Enoch "walked with God, and was not, for God took him" - the only one of the ten pre-Flood Patriarchs not reported to have died. Where did Enoch go when God took him? In a late Apocryphal tradition, Methuselah is reported to have visited Enoch at the end of the Earth, where he dwelt with the angels, immortal. The details bring to mind Utnapishtim, a figure from the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh - the hero Gilgamesh, after long and arduous travel, finds Utnapishtim living in the paradise of Dilmun at the end of the Earth, where he has been granted eternal life by the gods. (Gilgamesh's reason for seeking out Utnapishtim, incidentally, is to learn the secret of immortality - like Methuselah, he comes close to the gift but fails to achieve it). Utnapishtim then tells how he survived a great flood, and how he was afterwards granted immortality by the gods.

 

Lamech's statement that Noah will be named "rest" because "out of the ground which the Lord has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands," has another faint parallel in Babylonian mythology: the gods grew tired of working, digging the channels of the rivers, and so the god Enki created man from clay and blood and spit to do the work for them. Enki fell in love with his creation, and later warned Utnapishtim that the other gods planned to send a flood to destroy all life, and advised him on how to construct his ark.

In my opinion, they are welcome to open, but they will do it without me. From what I have read about what they are teaching, it would require me to believe that God created an archiological and geologic record that was intended to fool us. There is no conflict between mainstream science and religion. This museum tries to create one. That is a type of "creationism" I'll avoid.

In my opinion, they are welcome to open, but they will do it without me. From what I have read about what they are teaching, it would require me to believe that God created an archiological and geologic record that was intended to fool us. There is no conflict between mainstream science and religion. This museum tries to create one. That is a type of "creationism" I'll avoid.

 

Right. I can't help but think of the old cartoon that used to run during the Tom&Jerry block with old Texas outlaw "Dinosaur Dan," galloping across the high plains on his trusty dinosaur steed.

In my opinion, they are welcome to open, but they will do it without me. From what I have read about what they are teaching, it would require me to believe that God created an archiological and geologic record that was intended to fool us. There is no conflict between mainstream science and religion. This museum tries to create one. That is a type of "creationism" I'll avoid.

 

That is right where I am. I had no idea there was a riff between Christianity and evolution until I saw "creationists" protesting about its teaching in schools.

 

As a Christian, I sat through many Biology classes and never thought "Wow, this really contradicts what I believe."

Creation through evolution is what my Biology professor at Centre taught and I believe he was deacon at the local Baptist church, and Centre is a presbyterian school.

That is right where I am. I had no idea there was a riff between Christianity and evolution until I saw "creationists" protesting about its teaching in schools.

 

Now, surely that's not entirely true. Boiled down to its essence, creationists believe that the first human was created out of sand and clay. Evolutionists beliefs are otherwise. There has always been a conflict on that point. Its when teachers REFUSED to permit discussion of the creationist theory that creationists raised a stink (BOE in Kansas circa 1940). I don't know of any Creationists who object to evolution being taught; they simply object to evolution being the ONLY thing taught.

Creation through evolution is what my Biology professor at Centre taught and I believe he was deacon at the local Baptist church, and Centre is a presbyterian school.

 

Centre was formerly affiliated with Presbyterian Church USA, but no longer is. I probably had the same professor.

 

Why could God not have created the first human out of sand and clay, and then the evolutionary "process" have taken over from there?

Centre was formerly affiliated with Presbyterian Church USA, but no longer is. I probably had the same professor.

 

Why could God not have created the first human out of sand and clay, and then the evolutionary "process" have taken over from there?

 

Isn't that ultimately what everyone says? We just vary on how the form started out.

 

We were all created "from the earth".

 

Genesis 1 says nothing about clay, earth, breath, rib only that man was created in God's image.

Genesis 1 says nothing about clay, earth, breath, rib only that man was created in God's image.

Genesis 1 doesn't, but Genesis 2 does.

Isn't that ultimately what everyone says? We just vary on how the form started out.

 

We were all created "from the earth".

 

Genesis 1 says nothing about clay, earth, breath, rib only that man was created in God's image.

 

Genesis 2:7. Maybe I should have said "dust."