Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED

[shawn]

TOPIC SPLIT FROM "I'M FINALLY CONVINCED..."

I believe there is no other doctrine that has done more harm to the Christian faith.

Certainly for the people that are Christians.
But if I have to decide science did more harm to Christianity. Or more correctly the reponse of church to science. Earth is flat. All planets circle around earth. Planets move in perfect circles because God won't creating imperfect ellipces etc.
It's often said education drives out religion. I think that's true. But why? I think mainly because of church doctrine. More many people Bible=Church.
But in reality Bible != Church
And that sick ET stuff is part of it

As I wrote before:
UR= Mercy/grace
ED= Justice
ET= Sick/vengence

 

I'm not sure why the study of how God's physical laws work would do harm to Christianity.  The study of science has brought me new found awe of God.  With that said, I do see what you are saying at work.  I suppose it's kinda like when people watch illusionists.  When the illusion happens...people are in awe...can't believe it.  When they learn how it's done...its like oh.  Understanding how God makes the universe roll seems to take some of that shock and awe away from many individuals.  And the hostility that many scientists have towards God has led to science becoming a religion all in its own.

I am scientifically trained...I like empirical evidence.  But, I am also a man of faith...I need no evidence.  Blending the two has been a challenge.  But, I have found peace in studying what we know and having faith in that which can not ever be measured or studied.

[WhiteWings]

I suppose it's kinda like when people watch illusionists.  When the illusion happens...people are in awe...can't believe it.  When they learn how it's done...its like oh.

I was trying to say, I think many people are pushed away by the claims of church that don't align with science. Earth is 6000 years old, is one of the most known.

[shawn]

I suppose it's kinda like when people watch illusionists.  When the illusion happens...people are in awe...can't believe it.  When they learn how it's done...its like oh.

I was trying to say, I think many people are pushed away by the claims of church that don't align with science. Earth is 6000 years old, is one of the most known.

Well creationists have done a great deal of harm to Christian credibility.  How could anyone believe the earth is 6000 years old after looking at the evidence?  I align my thoughts with intelligent design based on the evidence.  I have faith in more based on personal experience.  Christianity, the Bible certainly align with science. 

[thinktank]

I suppose it's kinda like when people watch illusionists.  When the illusion happens...people are in awe...can't believe it.  When they learn how it's done...its like oh.

I was trying to say, I think many people are pushed away by the claims of church that don't align with science. Earth is 6000 years old, is one of the most known.

Well creationists have done a great deal of harm to Christian credibility.  How could anyone believe the earth is 6000 years old after looking at the evidence?  I align my thoughts with intelligent design based on the evidence.  I have faith in more based on personal experience.  Christianity, the Bible certainly align with science. 

If something is true why should one follow the majority in order to please them. Creationists seem to think the earth is 6000 years old and have some solid evidence. What evidence does evolution have? but based upon a theory, that things adapt ? and a lot of marketing.

[Molly]

I suppose it's kinda like when people watch illusionists.  When the illusion happens...people are in awe...can't believe it.  When they learn how it's done...its like oh.

I was trying to say, I think many people are pushed away by the claims of church that don't align with science. Earth is 6000 years old, is one of the most known.

I'm not sure the average Christian would claim that.  Certainly, it can be demonstrated that Adam was created 6000 years ago.  There is nothing in the Bible to prove that the earth was created 6000 years ago.

[thinktank]

The earth could be 12 thousands years ago

7 days of creating 7000 years

+ 6000- 5000 years of history

- 12 thousand or 13 thousand years

[WhiteWings]

If something is true why should one follow the majority in order to please them.

TT, it's not about following the majority. At least not for me.

Creationists seem to think the earth is 6000 years old and have some solid evidence.

I did see no to very little YEC evidence. Note I wrote YEC not OEC.

What evidence does evolution have?

Quite a bit. But if you mean Darwinian evolution. That crumbles more day after day. By research of other science.

The fact that the universe is about 14-15 billion years old doesn't disprove the hand of God. Plus science hasn't figured out everything. The big bang happened but it is against the laws of nature it did happen.
What if the big bang was the first phase of creation?

[Molly]

The earth could be 12 thousands years ago

7 days of creating 7000 years

+ 6000- 5000 years of history

- 12 thousand or 13 thousand years

plus the gap--it could be any number of years old, including 15 billion.

[WhiteWings]

The earth could be 12 thousands years ago

7 days of creating 7000 years

+ 6000- 5000 years of history

- 12 thousand or 13 thousand years

Isn't it 6 days of creating + 1 day of rest?
So 1000 years less.

If you take the Biblical timeline as civalisation of mankind then it fits quite well with archelogy.
For example Tubal-Cain=start of Bronze age.

[reFORMer]

I had a book by a professional scientist that explained with mathmatical proof how, due to relativity, time passing for someone inside the big bang and its subsequent universe compared to time passing for an outside observer, solves the discrepancy between the numbers.  An explanation was posted here on tentmaker not too long ago.

It does seem that the literal six days as six thousand years only applies to the re-creation of the earth according to the account in Genesis, not how long the earth or rest of the cosmos has existed.  In Genesis the universe with the water covered earth was already here.  Upon the face of that is what the Spirit was settling and brooding, as a hen over her chicks before the word, "Light be.".

[WhiteWings]

That was Gerald Schoeder (Genesis and the Big Bang) http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AccordingToGod.aspx
There are other explanations. But the most simple one is that the Hebrew Yom just like aion can mean about everything....
יום
yôm
BDB Definition:
1) day, time, year
1a) day (as opposed to night)
1b) day (24 hour period)
1b1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
1b2) as a division of time
1b2a) a working day, a day's journey
1c) days, lifetime (plural)
1d) time, period (general)
1e) year
1f) temporal references
1f1) today
1f2) yesterday
1f3) tomorrow
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong's Number: from an unused root meaning to be hot
Same Word by TWOT Number: 852
יוֹם
yôm: A masculine noun meaning day, time, year. This word stands as the most basic conception of time in the Old Testament. It designates such wide-ranging elements as the daylight hours from sunrise to sunset (Gen 1:5; 1Ki 19:4); a literal twenty-four hour cycle (Deu 16:8; 2Ki 25:30); a generic span of time (Gen 26:8; Num 20:15); a given point in time (Gen 2:17; Gen 47:29; Eze 33:12). In the plural, the word may also mean the span of life (Psa 102:3 [4]) or a year (Lev 25:29; 1Sa 27:7). The prophets often infuse the word with end-times meanings or connotations, using it in connection with a future period of consequential events, such as the "day of the LORD" (Jer 46:10; Zec 14:1) or simply, "that day" (Isa 19:23; Zec 14:20-21).Translating it a day is interpretation. Period would have been more neutral. Likely because it was night and day. That sounds like two 12 hour parts of a 24-hour day. It seem that in Hebrew it's plural. Add to that the fact that the words for light and dark have various meanings and there is even less proof it must be a 24 hour day.

[micah7:9]

Ive mentioned this before, arent days 12 hours? Doesnt that alone mess of the caculations of man and science?

Joh 11:9  Jesus answered, `Are there not twelve hours in the day? if any one may walk in the day, he doth not stumble, because the light of this world he doth see;

Seems science and theology work from a  24 hour day, at least from what I have read. I think we sometimes forget that the Book was written by[inspired men of] God, and it has little, it anything to do with what man[earthy] and his history conjure up with the foolishness of mans wisdom.  My 

WW

[WhiteWings]

Day 1:
Hedean eon: 4,600-3,900 mya => solidification of earth's crust
Day 2:
Archeozoic eon: 3,900-2,500 mya - bacteria, blue-green algae & archaens start to oxygenate atmosphere
Day 3:
Early life
Silurian period -  405-425 mya
Day 4:
Sun and Moon.
Between day 1 and 2
Day 5:
Cambrian. 600-400 million years ago
Day 6:
(40 mya)

The above is a bit tricky to summarize.
Genesis doesn't say: THE first day era, but ONE era.
God just states 6 eras. They can chronological. But likely are not.

[WhiteWings]

Ive mentioned this before, arent days 12 hours? Doesnt that alone mess of the caculations of man and science?

Joh 11:9  Jesus answered, `Are there not twelve hours in the day? if any one may walk in the day, he doth not stumble, because the light of this world he doth see;

Day=light=order=holiness. Night=dark=chaos=sin
So I think the verse has a double meaning. And yes of course many day's mentioned in the Bible are real 12 hour days.
Jonah was in the whale for 3 days and 3 nights. That's max. 6*12 hours. Not 72.000 years or 72 seconds.

Seems science and theology work from a  24 hour day, at least from what I have read. I think we sometimes forget that the Book was written by[inspired men of] God, and it has little, it anything to do with what man[earthy] and his history conjure up with the foolishness of mans wisdom.  My  

Maybe the foolishness of man was to assume he knows how to translate the Bible :)
A 12-13th century Jewish scholar wrote earth was very old. He even described the very first fraction of a second of the Big Bang. Mass was created and was followed by time. "when time grabs hold"
He's concindered the greatest Jewish scholar ever. I still don't know how that man leaened those things. Vision from God or is it really in the Hebrew text?
Meaning 'our' text lacks a great deal of depth.

WW

M

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Shawn... 

I suppose it's kinda like when people watch illusionists.  When the illusion happens...people are in awe...can't believe it.  When they learn how it's done...its like oh.

I was trying to say, I think many people are pushed away by the claims of church that don't align with science. Earth is 6000 years old, is one of the most known.

Well creationists have done a great deal of harm to Christian credibility.  How could anyone believe the earth is 6000 years old after looking at the evidence?

FIRST --- The biggest problem with science is that they OFTEN state THEORY and HYPOTHESIS as if it were FACT... Just tune into the Nat Geo, History or Discovery Channels on any given day, and you will witness this.

SECOND --- There has to be an explanation that aligns the evidence which "seems" representative of a massive amount of TIME, with the Biblical account of time being, 6000 years... For the WORD of God is the TRUTH (above ANY scientific THEORY or CONJECTURE)... and the TRUTH notes that (approx) 6000yrs has taken place in time, since Adam's creation on the 6th "day"...

THIRD --- Science bases its conjectures (theories, hypotheses), upon proximity to ITSELF, which in the end, IS the problem concerning their determinations of the Earth and its "AGE". 

IOW, because there appears discrepancies such as strata layers in the earth, dinosaurs, etc... that they use to determine that the stated time frames noted in the HOLY WORD of GOD, are not possibly correct... and therein lies the fault in their FINITE determination of the INFINITE source of the Earth and Universe which they observe.  There IS an explanation which brings these (science's view of Millions of years VS 6000 years), but they will not consider it.

Also, the WORD notes that DEATH entered (into the CREATION) by Adam's indescretion -- Rom 5:12 -- so prior to Adam's sin... death had no portion within the Creation, having NOT ENTERED. 

This includes the "evidences" such as Dinosaurs which had LIVED, and DIED... and which "evidences" are YET present IN the CREATION, as we speak. 

reFORMer notes a "re-creation" of the Earth, ...however this subtle assertion, is as much a CONJECTURE ...as make the scientists of the "BIG BANG"... 

The WORD does not note that there was a "re-creation"... it simply notes that the "earth" (and heaven) was WITHOUT FORM (yet to be shaped), and VOID (empty) until GOD decided to FILL the emptiness, and DRESS (shape) it with LIFE that it NOT be "VOID"... DISPATCHING His WORD in doing so -- Isaiah 55:11 -- Gen 1:3--2:1

GOD has no beginning... and neither does anything within Him (Acts 17:28)...

The "Creation" is the "beginning" of the REVELATION of the WORD which was (is, will be) within Him... All that proceeds from Him, has ALWAYS been part of Him, as He does NOT CHANGE! 

The word "created" noted in Gen 1:1 can and DOES mean DISPATCHED...

The "Earth" was (is, will be) ETERNALLY present in the Heart of YHVH... but its PHYSICAL presence was yet to be manifest by the Revelation of the WORD within YHVH, which is the maker of ALL things -- John 1:3 -- Col 1:16 -- and therefore, nothing PHYSICAL (including "dinosaurs" which were once living PHYSICAL entities), had yet to "BE".

The book of the REVEALING of the WORD of YHVH (Revelation of JESUS CHRIST), upon IT's "REVEALING" ...notes in concluding that "revelation" that DEATH passes away...  and shall no longer be an existent thing...

The WORD does NOT CHANGE -- Heb 13:8 -- James 1:17 -- neither does YHVH -- Mal 3:6... so WHY would DEATH --- of the "DINOSAURS" and other things in a "prior creation" which had to have been produced by the WORD as well (for the WORD is the maker of ALL THINGS that are "made"), ...have existed prior to THIS EARTH, and evidence of their DEATH, survived to be EXISTENT in "this creation" as well? 

Is God revisiting DEATH which preceeded in a prior creation?  If so, WHY?  What REASON exists that He did not "do away" with it in THAT "creation"?  Why let another (this) Creation effort fall to DEATH as well? 

If the WORD of GOD is LIFE (which it IS) -- John 14:6 -- which also PUTS AWAY DEATH in IT's "revelation" and conclusion -- Rev 21:4 -- Why was it [death] allowed to survive a previous "creation" and extend into this one?

REASON dictates that LIFE conquered DEATH in and ON, this Earth... If the WORD declares that DEATH shall PASS AWAY permanently... why was it "re-allowed" to CONTINUE to exist from a "prior" creation? 

That makes absolutely NO SENSE to me.  God is REVEALING His WORD in and on THIS Earth... and CHRIST died ONCE (not twice) for ALL. -- Heb 9:26 -- 10:10

The TRUTH is that the WORD of God makes no such statement (of the existence of a "prior creation")... it is nothing but an "imagination", just as is ...the "Big Bang".

I align my thoughts with intelligent design based on the evidence.  I have faith in more based on personal experience.  Christianity, the Bible certainly align with science. 

How can it be possible, that Science which was CREATED by GOD, ...NOT be in ALIGNMENT with His WORD? 

There IS an explanation... but most (hardly any), either holding the opposing Spiritual or Scientific positions ...will not listen to it, for it takes a combining of the PHYSICAL with the SPIRITUAL to gain it, ...and the SPIRITUAL (faith/infinite/which needs no "substance" of the Physical) actively refuses the PHYSICAL (science/finite/which  requires "proof") ...And in kind, the PHYSICAL (science) promptly refuses the SPIRITUAL (faith) as well...

BOTH failing to realize that BOTH find their source in YHVH God...

No matter who argues the point (from either spiritual or scientific viewpoints)... the FACT remains that GOD's WORD (which notes a 6000 year  time frame... is the TRUTH... and somehow, the "ANCIENT evidence" fits within that time frame.

...willieH 

[micah7:9]

"Maybe the foolishness of man was to assume he knows how to translate the Bible :)" WW

But it is the indwelling Spirit that gives the understanding to what Jehovah is revealing to His creation.
I personally think all of mans time trying to figger out the "time" in the Book is man wasting time, most of the time.

[shawn]

If something is true why should one follow the majority in order to please them.

TT, it's not about following the majority. At least not for me.

Creationists seem to think the earth is 6000 years old and have some solid evidence.

I did see no to very little YEC evidence. Note I wrote YEC not OEC.

What evidence does evolution have?

Quite a bit. But if you mean Darwinian evolution. That crumbles more day after day. By research of other science.

The fact that the universe is much 14-15 billion years old doesn't disprove the hand of God. Plus science hasn't figured out everything. The big bang happened but it is against the laws of nature it did happen.
What if the big bang was the first phase of creation?

The Creationists have little evidence that a scientifically trained eye would find credible.  The earth is not 6000 years old.  And I agree with you WW Neo-Darwinism crumbles under the weight of random mutational theory.  It just can't happen.  It's just as absurd as saying the earth is 6000 years old.

As for the Big Bang...we are not so sure it happened that way in the classical sense.  Looking at string theory and specifically M-theory we are led to believe it's possible that the material in our D-brane (universe) was merely redisturbuted after parrallel branes (universes) collided.  The quantum mathmatics doesn't work out when speaking about Big Bang in its classical understanding.

[shawn]

willieH: Hi Shawn... 

I suppose it's kinda like when people watch illusionists.  When the illusion happens...people are in awe...can't believe it.  When they learn how it's done...its like oh.

I was trying to say, I think many people are pushed away by the claims of church that don't align with science. Earth is 6000 years old, is one of the most known.

Well creationists have done a great deal of harm to Christian credibility.  How could anyone believe the earth is 6000 years old after looking at the evidence?

FIRST --- The biggest problem with science is that they OFTEN state THEORY and HYPOTHESIS as if it were FACT... Just tune into the Nat Geo, History or Discovery Channels on any given day, and you will witness this.

SECOND --- There has to be an explanation that aligns the evidence which "seems" representative of a massive amount of TIME, with the Biblical account of time being, 6000 years... For the WORD of God is the TRUTH (above ANY scientific THEORY or CONJECTURE)... and the TRUTH notes that (approx) 6000yrs has taken place in time, since Adam's creation on the 6th "day"...

THIRD --- Science bases its conjectures (theories, hypotheses), upon proximity to ITSELF, which in the end, IS the problem concerning their determinations of the Earth and its "AGE". 

IOW, because there appears discrepancies such as strata layers in the earth, dinosaurs, etc... that they use to determine that the stated time frames noted in the HOLY WORD of GOD, are not possibly correct... and therein lies the fault in their FINITE determination of the INFINITE source of the Earth and Universe which they observe.  There IS an explanation which brings these (science's view of Millions of years VS 6000 years), but they will not consider it.

Also, the WORD notes that DEATH entered (into the CREATION) by Adam's indescretion -- Rom 5:12 -- so prior to Adam's sin... death had no portion within the Creation, having NOT ENTERED. 

This includes the "evidences" such as Dinosaurs which had LIVED, and DIED... and which "evidences" are YET present IN the CREATION, as we speak. 

reFORMer notes a "re-creation" of the Earth, ...however this subtle assertion, is as much a CONJECTURE ...as make the scientists of the "BIG BANG"... 

The WORD does not note that there was a "re-creation"... it simply notes that the "earth" (and heaven) was WITHOUT FORM (yet to be shaped), and VOID (empty) until GOD decided to FILL the emptiness, and DRESS (shape) it with LIFE that it NOT be "VOID"... DISPATCHING His WORD in doing so -- Isaiah 55:11 -- Gen 1:3--2:1

GOD has no beginning... and neither does anything within Him (Acts 17:28)...

The "Creation" is the "beginning" of the REVELATION of the WORD which was (is, will be) within Him... All that proceeds from Him, has ALWAYS been part of Him, as He does NOT CHANGE! 

The word "created" noted in Gen 1:1 can and DOES mean DISPATCHED...

The "Earth" was (is, will be) ETERNALLY present in the Heart of YHVH... but its PHYSICAL presence was yet to be manifest by the Revelation of the WORD within YHVH, which is the maker of ALL things -- John 1:3 -- Col 1:16 -- and therefore, nothing PHYSICAL (including "dinosaurs" which were once living PHYSICAL entities), had yet to "BE".

The book of the REVEALING of the WORD of YHVH (Revelation of JESUS CHRIST), upon IT's "REVEALING" ...notes in concluding that "revelation" that DEATH passes away...  and shall no longer be an existent thing...

The WORD does NOT CHANGE -- Heb 13:8 -- James 1:17 -- neither does YHVH -- Mal 3:6... so WHY would DEATH --- of the "DINOSAURS" and other things in a "prior creation" which had to have been produced by the WORD as well (for the WORD is the maker of ALL THINGS that are "made"), ...have existed prior to THIS EARTH, and evidence of their DEATH, survived to be EXISTENT in "this creation" as well? 

Is God revisiting DEATH which preceeded in a prior creation?  If so, WHY?  What REASON exists that He did not "do away" with it in THAT "creation"?  Why let another (this) Creation effort fall to DEATH as well? 

If the WORD of GOD is LIFE (which it IS) -- John 14:6 -- which also PUTS AWAY DEATH in IT's "revelation" and conclusion -- Rev 21:4 -- Why was it [death] allowed to survive a previous "creation" and extend into this one?

REASON dictates that LIFE conquered DEATH in and ON, this Earth... If the WORD declares that DEATH shall PASS AWAY permanently... why was it "re-allowed" to CONTINUE to exist from a "prior" creation? 

That makes absolutely NO SENSE to me.  God is REVEALING His WORD in and on THIS Earth... and CHRIST died ONCE (not twice) for ALL. -- Heb 9:26 -- 10:10

The TRUTH is that the WORD of God makes no such statement (of the existence of a "prior creation")... it is nothing but an "imagination", just as is ...the "Big Bang".

I align my thoughts with intelligent design based on the evidence.  I have faith in more based on personal experience.  Christianity, the Bible certainly align with science. 

How can it be possible, that Science which was CREATED by GOD, ...NOT be in ALIGNMENT with His WORD? 

There IS an explanation... but most (hardly any), either holding the opposing Spiritual or Scientific positions ...will not listen to it, for it takes a combining of the PHYSICAL with the SPIRITUAL to gain it, ...and the SPIRITUAL (faith/infinite/which needs no "substance" of the Physical) actively refuses the PHYSICAL (science/finite/which  requires "proof") ...And in kind, the PHYSICAL (science) promptly refuses the SPIRITUAL (faith) as well...

BOTH failing to realize that BOTH find their source in YHVH God...

No matter who argues the point (from either spiritual or scientific viewpoints)... the FACT remains that GOD's WORD (which notes a 6000 year  time frame... is the TRUTH... and somehow, the "ANCIENT evidence" fits within that time frame.

...willieH 

Have creationists ever considered their interpretation of scripture is inaccurate?  Do you really believe man walked with the dinosaurs?  Don't you think a few of those dinosaurs would have had a few human bones where their stomachs should be? 

[Lefein]

Revelation is a (the last, the ending) book of the Bible that uses symbolic language (and literal language too) to describe literal happenings.  Why can't Genesis, the beginning of the Bible be likewise?  A book that uses symbolic language, to describe literal happenings.

[shawn]

Revelation is a (the last, the ending) book of the Bible that uses symbolic language (and literal language too) to describe literal happenings.  Why can't Genesis, the beginning of the Bible be likewise?  A book that uses symbolic language, to describe literal happenings.

$$$

Your wisdom is well beyond your years.   

[Lefein]

Lol, I can only hope the wisdom isn't mine to begin with. :p

But thanks for the compliment anyhow!  I hope it'll be a blessing to you as it was to me.  After having long, drawn out, vicious battles with Atheists over my YEC beliefs...which have since then become "Either way, doesn't matter, God is God", it really helped me when it came to me that the beginning of the book, is fitting to be like the end. ^^

[shawn]

Lol, I can only hope the wisdom isn't mine to begin with. :p

But thanks for the compliment anyhow!  I hope it'll be a blessing to you as it was to me.  After having long, drawn out, vicious battles with Atheists over my YEC beliefs...which have since then become "Either way, doesn't matter, God is God", it really helped me when it came to me that the beginning of the book, is fitting to be like the end. ^^

I mean do people really believe a man lived in the belly of a whale?  While anything is possible with God I am more apt to believe many of the stories are symbolic in nature.  Jesus spoke in parables...nonliteral stories to teach lessons.  Why would Christians take issue with looking at other scripture like that?

Yeah YEC has serious problems with validity.  I could more align myself with OEC...progressive creationists or even theisitic evolutionists.  I believe the book of Genesis is a nonliteral accounting of creation.  I believe the imagery is symbolic.  If it's not...then you have alot of dancing to do in order for it to make sense.  While some say science should fit the Bible.  I say science will fit the Bible...but only if interpreted correctly.

[micah7:9]

Revelation is a (the last, the ending) book of the Bible that uses symbolic language (and literal language too) to describe literal happenings.  Why can't Genesis, the beginning of the Bible be likewise?  A book that uses symbolic language, to describe literal happenings.

Friend I believe you have got that correct about Genesis. Aint so sure about the Apocalypse. Just my thoughts.

[jabcat]

Lol, I can only hope the wisdom isn't mine to begin with. :p

But thanks for the compliment anyhow!  I hope it'll be a blessing to you as it was to me.  After having long, drawn out, vicious battles with Atheists over my YEC beliefs...which have since then become "Either way, doesn't matter, God is God", it really helped me when it came to me that the beginning of the book, is fitting to be like the end. ^^

I mean do people really believe a man lived in the belly of a whale?  While anything is possible with God I am more apt to believe many of the stories are symbolic in nature.  Jesus spoke in parables...nonliteral stories to teach lessons.  Why would Christians take issue with looking at other scripture like that?

Yeah YEC has serious problems with validity.  I could more align myself with OEC...progressive creationists or even theisitic evolutionists.  I believe the book of Genesis is a nonliteral accounting of creation.  I believe the imagery is symbolic.  If it's not...then you have alot of dancing to do in order for it to make sense.  While some say science should fit the Bible.  I say science will fit the Bible...but only if interpreted correctly.

I'm certainly open to many things being symbolic.  I'm just generally not sure what is and what isn't in many places .  I personally feel a need to be very careful picking and choosing - I believe I need deeper revelation on various issues to know which is which.

Anyway, we're in danger of hijacking/derailing this thread, and I'm participating.    I won't vouch for its scientific accuaracy, because I just don't know.  However, I found the following interesting.  It may at least encourage us to take extreme care with what we judge as literal vs. symbolic.  If we wander too far and too long off-topic, I'll split this into another thread...

This from Michigan University Internet Church site;  "Yes, even though some may say that a whale couldn't swallow a man, as well as live in its belly for 3 days.  First of all, Jesus believed it (Matthew 12:40).  Secondly, the Creator of the universe "prepared a fish" to swallow Jonah (Jonah 1:17).  We also must realize that some species of whales and sharks can swallow a man whole.  The sperm whale, white shark, and whale shark have been found with whole animals as large or larger than man in their stomachs.  There have been recorded events in whaling history where men have been swallowed by these animals and rescued.  As far as the 3 days and 3 nights, there remains the possibility that these were not 3 entire nights and days.  It may have been an entire day and parts of 2 other days (38 hours).
 
   A man named James Bartly in 1895 is known to have survived for one and a half days before being rescued.  There is always air in the whale's belly and as long as the victim is still alive in the belly, digestive juices will not flow. If this answer does not suffice, couldn't God have performed a miracle? The last possibility was that Jonah suffered and died and the Lord raised him from the dead."

http://www.muiczone.com/FAQ_View.cfm?FAQID=23

[thinktank]

Lol, I can only hope the wisdom isn't mine to begin with. :p

But thanks for the compliment anyhow!  I hope it'll be a blessing to you as it was to me.  After having long, drawn out, vicious battles with Atheists over my YEC beliefs...which have since then become "Either way, doesn't matter, God is God", it really helped me when it came to me that the beginning of the book, is fitting to be like the end. ^^

I mean do people really believe a man lived in the belly of a whale?  While anything is possible with God I am more apt to believe many of the stories are symbolic in nature.  Jesus spoke in parables...nonliteral stories to teach lessons.  Why would Christians take issue with looking at other scripture like that?

Yeah YEC has serious problems with validity.  I could more align myself with OEC...progressive creationists or even theisitic evolutionists.  I believe the book of Genesis is a nonliteral accounting of creation.  I believe the imagery is symbolic.  If it's not...then you have alot of dancing to do in order for it to make sense.  While some say science should fit the Bible.  I say science will fit the Bible...but only if interpreted correctly.

I think science has a lot to offer and is solid in many aspects. However when it comes to evolution, creation etc science is a bit sloppy. How can some scientists say that the ea brarth is 6000 years old while others say it's millions and millions of years old and others say millions and millions and millions  

But what other sciencench says maths 2 + 2= 4    Scientists B no maths 2+2 = 3

Only one of them is correct. But to me evolutionist scientists have much more data, time and money than the creationist scientists and so have an unfair advantage.

Aslo don't forge the implications. If God created humanity via evolution, then that means we are nothing more than evolved developed chemical formulas and not beings made in the image of God.