I've been reading the NT from the Greek text, so this is not a concern. There is, of course, debate as to the manuscripts themselves (i.e. which ones do we use.) But, the NT we have today is based on the manuscripts that were most accepted. Much of the difference in the manuscripts is only significant to fine tuning theology and does not affect the overall message.

OK - this answers my question.

For ADPiZXAlum - there are subtle issues that truly literal traslation would fail to account for. References to the 'four corners of the earth' require some sects to believe in a flat earth. This is not necessarily what I'm referring to, but is an example of the concept. A fairly meaningless example would be identifying a circle "10 cubits across, and 30 around".

I'm not saying the Bible is a sea of contradictions - some have, and they wind up relying extensively on examples like that above - so no need to turn the offended crank. Instead, I'm saying that faux-literal translation of the Bible runs into serious issues (and it appears that jeni has addressed these, for herself, above) - regardless of personal faith.

Last time I checked, Genesis is part of the OT.

I didn't say that I haven't studied Genesis and the discussions surrounding this book. I just said that my current focus has been the Greek NT. When I become more familiar with the Hebrew language, I'll be better equipped to discuss the nuances of the Genesis story. For now, I will comment only on what I know - the genres of the OT and NT - which does provide me with a foundation to discuss the OT.

KSig RC if you are interested in gaining some further insight into the some of the earliest books of the Bible (OT) I'd suggest doing a little reading up of Babylonian myths - I think youl'll find some interesting corelations between early Bibilical stories/accounts/myths and the early myths of the Fertile Crescent.

Sorry what translation are you referencing here? I couldn't find the word REPLENISH or reference to a similar term in any of the translations I looked at - seek dominion over, or subdue yes... be fruitful and multiply/fill the earth yes... but no REPLENISH.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Matter cannot be created or destroyed--it just changes from one form into another...

It is not a matter of belief to scientists. We can prove it to be true with mathematics and physics--maybe I can't but, I know some of the Eigen values from Real Variable Euclidian mathematicians can...

I guess the scientists are saying there is no "start time" to all of this existence... When did humans start to exist relative to a God is not a question we ask--not because we don't believe it, we just cannot test it out... But we can test out relative relationships of DNA in paradigm map...

As you progress in your studies--even if you remain a Christian--you still have to do some research of other religions. The Aztecs and Mayans had that life came in cycles... Mainly their high priests practiced these calculations... They came up with the math concept of something beyond infinity... I can't calculated it, but there is a formula for it...

Then how do you come up with the concept of P? Those were the Egyptian mathematicians.

So we are using their calculations still to this day and they have not varied... That is where the scientists get a "relative point of reference" of a start time... But within exact certainty--well, there is a calculation for that too, but I cannot do it...

I have a somewhat related question.

What is the Creationist viewpoint on other planets or the way or solar system is made up?

When we studied Genesis in high school, the Earth was described as a dome with a cover of some sort to protect us from the water chilling above. And the sun, moon and stars hung from the dome. Didn't say anything about other planets and galaxies. It was very Earth-centric (and I've got a really bad sketch of it in one of my high school notebooks.)

But are there those that consider this aspect of the Bible as a literal make up of "outer" space?

I only ask because I was really into astronomy as a kid.

Speaking of my high school theo classes, we had a very interesting conversation about the way our Bibles were translated. I guess I will ask the question for of the scholars out there is when did the concept of a day = 24 hours come about? And what is considered a "day" in the Bible? Do those that believe in Creationism believe God created the Earth and life in 168 hours? Could a day meant a series of years? Weeks? Centuries? I mean this was written so long ago that "their" concept of a day could be completely different then ours.

So perhaps maybe the Earth IS a lot older than the Bible says based on our present opinions of time, but maybe it isn't. The Catholic Litergical Year is based off of lunar cycles, hense Easter being different every year. Perhaps their "days" were longer... or shorter.

I have studied a bit about the numbers used in the Bible. (Such as 7 being a perfect number and 6 being an imperfect number.) And for that reason, I consider the creation story to be one of those metaphors that MysticCat was talking about. I know that God created Earth all that it features, but I have to look beyond the constraint of "7 days and nights." Something about using 7 in anything would imply that it's perfect and is a direct association of God. It's a lot simpler to say he created for 6 days and rested on the 7th, than say some other insanely large number associated with 7 and assume that reader wishes to do the math.

And I've gone on for too long.
:)
But I really am curious about the whole planet and day thing.

Re: Bible "time" vs our "time"
 

Does anyone remember the episode of The Simpsons where Lisa creates a universe/society of her own out of a lost tooth and a can of cola? Over a course of a week or month (not sure what it was. I haven't seen the episode in a very long time), the "world" went from primative times to the producer's imagination of the future.

The Authorized King James Version

1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

but "replenish" is not in the New Revised Standard Version. The NRSV says:

"Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea..."

So which one is right? The NRSV was the Bible I used for my religion classes in middle school, and the version we used in our daily Chapel services.

Wll, I'm not going to tell you which bible to use or which one is right. Earlier I made the comment that many people believe that there is one "right" translation of the bible. There are some who believe that the New American Standards is the best because it most closely follows the "originals", most Southern Baptist Churches use the NIV, most Catholics use another version that contain the apocrypha, believing that these books are also part of the inspired scriptures, yet not part of other versions, some believe that the King James Version is the best English translation. You are right, the NRSV does not have the word replenish. Your beliefs and such would probably stem from which version you use.

Many words/verses have different meanings across translations. As a result I can see how many argue that there are discrepencies and/or contradictions in the Bible, although I truly believe there are none.

For example:
John 3:16 is one of the most well known verses in the world.
In the KJV is reads: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosover believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

If you look at the NIV, only begotten is replaced with one and only.

There is a HUGE difference between the meaning of only begotten son and one and only son. Example: A man and woman adopt a child thinking that they will never have a child of their own, and later the woman becomes pregnant. That second child is their 'only begotten child' but not their one and only child.
This may not seem like a huge deal, but there are many who look for discrepencies in the scriptures to claim that it is not the true word of God. When comparing John 3:16 in a version that reads "one and only son" to verses such as John 1:12, Romans 8:14, 1 John 3:1-2, that use the term sons of God, it seems to be a contradiction. Some would ask, how can God have many "sons" if he has one and only son?

And case in point with our discussion here, replenish the earth and fill the eart have two different meanings, very similar, but different.

Anyway, that is just one of the many arguments I've heard about the question over different translations.

I don't quite understand this question. God created the universe.

Quote:

When we studied Genesis in high school, the Earth was described as a dome with a cover of some sort to protect us from the water chilling above. And the sun, moon and stars hung from the dome. Didn't say anything about other planets and galaxies. It was very Earth-centric (and I've got a really bad sketch of it in one of my high school notebooks.)

The Genesis explanation is illustrated by current scientific understanding. And, the Bible is Earth-centric because it is a message to humans.

Quote:

Speaking of my high school theo classes, we had a very interesting conversation about the way our Bibles were translated. I guess I will ask the question for of the scholars out there is when did the concept of a day = 24 hours come about? And what is considered a "day" in the Bible? Do those that believe in Creationism believe God created the Earth and life in 168 hours? Could a day meant a series of years? Weeks? Centuries? I mean this was written so long ago that "their" concept of a day could be completely different then ours.

This is a scholarly question. You're right about the length of a day which is why there is debate over Youth Earth/Old Earth, progressive creation, etc.

I am by no means an expert and I want to make sure that is clear!

In my RCIA (basically conversion to Catholicism classes), the question of the "day"/168 hours came up. The priest told us that the original word used was more closely defined as an "epoch" or "era", meaning some time period. So, it wasn't necessarily seven days as we think of it today.

I don't know if this is going way too far out on a limb, but...

For those of you who believe in God -- what exactly IS God? Does God have a physical presence? Where is God?

There's this obscure but awesome movie called Vernon, Florida and in it, this guy is talking about God and (forgive me if I get it wrong because I haven't seen it for a while) a conversation he had with someone who didn't believe in God. He asks the guy how such and such could be and the guy said, "Well, that just happened." So the guy in the movie says to take "that just happened" and call it God instead.

Would that at all jive with your concept of God? If not, why?