I think Christianity must, of necessity, be about the Bible. It has to be. But because humans can create so many conflicting interpretations, we have to include utter humility so that we may let go of cherished beliefs (interpretations) and grow toward a greater understanding and ultimately prepare the way for receiving God's Truth. I don't think anyone currently on Earth has gotten that far, yet. At least, I don't think I've met them or read of them.
Literalism is a no-win argument. Some believe that Gods truth is written on the heart, not to be found (at least originating from) any book. Faith * Belief, however are just that. They have no way to be proven through evidence. Which is why I usually stay out of the Science Forums.
Do you believe that the whole book is likely myth? If so, wouldn't that render powerless the object of our faith? (I realize this is a faith based question...but I would like some reassurance that there is verifiable power behind the stories and the beliefs). A Human can only do so much in and of themselves. We can't walk on water unless it is ice, and we cant heal the blind yet...though laser surgery has advanced considerably.
Perhaps the Flood story need not be literal and authentic...symbolism teaches ethics...but the Virgin Birth is a central tenet for most of club christian.
Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals).
Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck.
We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species.
If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period.
Talk about a big RED flag.
That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticists in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Years Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see.
So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood.
The video guy believes that the story of Noah is a teaching prop that is not literally true. I am not sure why Phat thinks posting a video of someone we never heard of is better that just saying that himself.
I and many others will not watch a video posted. Can you type out a coherent answer?
Basically what I said in the video was that to me, the flood story was symbolic..God always uses a remnant. I dont believe for a moment that Noah sent his boys up to Alaska to drag two kodiak bears down to their wooden boat.
The only way I could imagine two of every species being drawn to the Ark as opposed to being rounded up and captured by 8 humans would be if the Spirit supernaturally drew them to the Ark. How would that even be natural if bears couldn't swim across oceans? And if the supernatural need be invoked(or employed by the Creator) to make the story work, why not just wipe the whole etch a sketch out and start over?
I find that somewhat insulting, Faith. As a matter of fact, I think I have greater faith than you do....but of course that statement may insult you which is not my intention. Let me ask you this. Why does it have to be by the book? Why cant God...you know, the One whom is Jesus Christ and the Spirit...be real any other way than what your intellect can figure out?