Belief in God and Genesis

This is directed at Bible thumping, evangelical, Pentecostal, fundamentalist, believers in a personal God and Jesus.

People with enough sense to see through the flim-flam of modern day (and Old Time) Christianity can go about their business. 🙂

Answersingenesis puts the Noachian flood at 2304 BCE plus or minus 11 years.

Jehovah’s Witnesses place the flood at 2370 BCE. They don’t state an error factor, so I assume they’re pretty sure of the date.

Nowadays there is the story of the ‘Black Sea Deluge’ going around, and some are interpreting it as the reason for the many flood stories. It has been dated to about 5700-5900 BCE. This hypothesis (Black Sea) makes much more sense than the OT flood of Noah, as we know beyond a doubt that there was never a ‘world wide’ flood. They were all local.

One has only to pick dates between 2200 to 2500 BCE and then go to historical and archaeological data from around the world and do the proper investigating. There are no stories that can rightly be interpreted as “humongous world destroying floods” in Northern Europe, Central or Southern Europe, East or West Asia, India, Egypt, other Parts of Africa, Australia, North, Central, or South America….None. There is some geological evidence for small local floods, at different times, as one would expect when looking all over the earth.

Believers can talk till they’re blue in the face about many cultures having flood myths, so ours, about a worldwide flood, must be true….Wrong. The proven facts about worldwide population prove the Bible flood wrong beyond doubt. This also proves that the Tower of Babel story is wrong.

The Pyramids and Stonehenge were being built at the time of the Biblical Flood. We know, without any doubt at all, that most of the earth was populated between 2200-2500 BCE. The only way this can be denied is by using intentional stupidity as your criterion for looking at history. Every continent on earth was heavily populated at the Biblical Flood time. Hell, Mexico was experimenting with corn genetics 2000 years earlier than the ‘Flood.’

The Tower of Babel was 110 to 120 years after the flood, according to the Bible.

Do you think all these people living all over the earth were wiped out by a universal flood? Do you think you could possibly prove this? Of course not. But, it can be, and has been proven that it didn’t happen.

Do you think that all those tens of millions of people living all over the earth were talking the same language? Maybe grunting to each other? Of course not. They were using their own languages…the ones their mothers and fathers taught them…the ones people in their own countries were using for hundreds or thousands of years

The Genesis chapter is totally folklore/myth/old campfire stories. Modern day facts prove this beyond doubt. People who still believe this crap bunch of myths really need to get some education. Your church leaders…are leading you around by the nose, and you’re letting them.

The writers of biblical times were not even aware that there was a whole world beyond their limited, religiously driven sight. They were so taken up by trying to establish a reason for their being, that they had no vision of reality. They had no curiosity beyond their religion. They were probably the dullest, most anal people living on earth.

Can you imagine living your whole life in anticipation of something that never comes…Oh I forgot….you are. Can you imagine not quite fitting in with the real world because you don’t know (or worse, you deny) the facts of life? Of course you fit in with your fellow believers, but not really anywhere else.

I just can’t imagine living with your constant paranoia of thinking the Devil/Satan is looking to trip you up at any minute. Your constant dread of the original sin hanging over your head. Why do people do this to themselves?
I know the superficial answer, what’s the real one I wonder?

For the latest post go: Here

Add to Technorati Favorites

About the word of me
Interested in family and friends,grandchildren, photography, darkrooms, history, archaeology, scuba diving, computers, software, fast cars, journalism, writing, travel, ecology, news, science, and probably most other subjects you could think of. Did I mention family and friends?? I require iced tea or cold brewed coffee and a internet connection to be fully functional. Sometimes there are just so many words in my head they spill out.

15 Responses to Belief in God and Genesis

  1. godscript says:

    what’s your point?

  2. thewordofme says:

    Whats yours?

  3. Justin says:

    How about you just read the Bible with as many presuppositions taken away as possible. Start with John, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

  4. thewordofme says:

    Luke and Matthew seem to be copying Mark. Whats up with that?

  5. thewordofme says:

    Synoptic Gospels The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the New Testament. Since the 1780s, the first three books of the New Testament have been called the Synoptic Gospels because they are so similar in structure, content, and wording that they can easily be set side by side to provide a synoptic comparison of their content.
    (The Gospel of John has a different arrangement and offers a somewhat different perspective on Christ.) The striking similarities between the first three Gospels prompt questions regarding the actual literary relationship that exists between them. This question, called the Synoptic problem, has been elaborately studied in modern times.
    Synoptic Gospels. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica. Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.

    The Holy Gospel Of Jesus Christ According To St. Mark, second of the four New Testament Gospels (narratives recounting the life and death of Jesus Christ), and, with Matthew and Luke, one of the three Synoptic Gospels (i.e., those presenting a common view).

    It is attributed to John Mark (Acts 12:12; 15:37), an associate of Paul and a disciple of Peter, whose teachings the Gospel may reflect. It is the shortest and the earliest of the four Gospels, presumably written during the decade preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

    Most scholars agree that it was used by Matthew and Luke in composing their accounts; more than 90 percent of the content of Mark’s Gospel appears in Matthew’s, and more than 50 percent in the Gospel of Luke.

    Although the text lacks literary polish, it is simple and direct; and, as the earliest Gospel, it is the primary source of information about the ministry of Jesus.
    Mark, The Gospel According to. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica. Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.

    Mark’s text has 661 verses, more than 600 of which appear in Matthew and 350 in Luke. Only c. 31 verses of Mark are found nowhere in Matthew or Luke.

    In the material common to all three Synoptics, there is very seldom-verbatim agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark, though such agreement is common between Matthew and Mark or Luke and Mark or where all three concur.

    Huummm. Who should I believe; A religious site, or the Encyclopedia Britannica ?

  6. ldugan says:

    “I just can’t imagine living with your constant paranoia of thinking the Devil/Satan is looking to trip you up at any minute. Your constant dread of the original sin hanging over your head. Why do people do this to themselves?I know the superficial answer, what’s the real one I wonder?”

    Well i don’t hold the dread of my sin over me. I know that Christ has forgiven me and I’m reminded every day of His amazing free gift of salvation by faith. I know for a fact that I can do nothing to earn my salvation and to me that makes Christ even more amazing.

    “Huummm. Who should I believe; A religious site, or the Encyclopedia Britannica ?”

    How about believing the Bible? Both that site and the Encyclopedia Britannica were written by men (btw I haven’t read the site but i’m sure it’s better than the encyclopedia). Yes the Bible was “written” by men, but they were men inspired by God.

    If you haven’t already I would read “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. I’m reading it right now and the first couple chapters are really good and talk about the Synoptic Gospels. It’s very interesting.

  7. Robaigh says:

    Hi. I’m siding with ldugan on this one. Mostly. She suggests that you consider believing the Bible over Britannica. I won’t go so far as to suggest you throw away your (God-given) reason and just believe what the Bible says. You should think about it and test it. (You’ve already begun that important work!) But when you test it, do so with an open mind, considering the possibility – however improbable you might think it right now – that there’s truth to be discovered.

    The other necessary condition to testing the Bible is to read it. I’m guessing you’ve read parts of it, but read the whole thing some day. If it helps, try a paraphrase (I’d recommend The Message, paraphrased by Eugene Peterson, which comes in an edition called Remix 2.0 – I only bring this up, because I’ve found the chapter intros to be very useful). I’m assuming that you haven’t read all the way through, because if you did, you would have noticed that people writing during “Biblical times” (which really covers a very long period of time) clearly knew about cultures and countries other than their own. And clearly all the people living at those times were not religious ideologues, or even necessarily successful at following the religious dictates of their own societies. Try reading the Prophets for illustrations of that fact. (Isaiah is one of my favorites.)

    Anyway, I’m really glad that you have this site up, and that you’re willing to discuss things with people of opposing viewpoints. Dialog is a good inroad to mutual understanding.



  8. thewordofme says:

    Hi Robaigh, thank you for writing.
    I’m running short of time right now, I will answer soon. Thanks

  9. Robaigh says:

    Sweet. I’ll check back later. Have a good’n.


  10. thewordofme says:

    Hi again Idugan,

    You are way to young to have any sins to be forgiven of.

    The church makes it seem easy, to lure you in. Then they have you in their clutches 🙂

    If the Bible made any kind of sense I could maybe believe it. There are way to many discrepancies.

    No, religious sites are always slanted to back up their particular sects view on what is truth. Sometimes you just have to read the first paragraph to identify the sect. But, then you can do that with secular literature also.

    I truly don’t think the Bible is ‘inspired’ literature. After so many thousands of years men/women still cannot come to an accord on the true meaning of scripture. This is, to me, a real indication of how wrong it is. A reality check.

    I will put the book on my list, but it may be awhile before I get to it as I have a loooong list 🙂

    Always good to hear from you…thanks

  11. thewordofme says:

    Hi again Robaigh,

    I believe I approach learning about these subjects with as open a mind as I can muster.

    I don’t know if you have read any of my other posts. Just to explain, I decided at the age of 13 or 14 that I did not believe in the Christian God, as explained to me at that age. Of course I was a stupid teenager, but the decision was pretty firm and later in life I researched it and it didn’t change.

    Now, with a wife who is very Christian, I decided to open the search again. Final results are not in, but at this point it doesn’t look like there are anymore proofs now, then there was earlier.

    I have Isaac Asimov’s ‘Guide to the Bible’ which explains the Old and New Testament pretty thoroughly and in an easy to assimilate way.

    I have tried, more than a few times, to read the Bible all the way through…Can’t do it…come across too many discrepancies that make me question what I’m reading. Stops me dead in my tracks.

    I don’t think the early Jewish writers knew much about any of the world outside of the Middle East

    Thank you for the kudos regarding dialogs and discussion. I really enjoy the ‘talk’ and open mindedness of you and other correspondents.

  12. Robaigh says:


    I appreciate that you don’t just dismiss arguments out of hand, but choose to investigate them instead. Sometimes the key to “solving” (or resolving) an issue that you want to unravel requires investigation from a different perspective. It might have been CS Lewis again who talked about Scriptures as a multi-faceted jewel that reveals something new (or looks different) depending on the perspective from which the onlooker gazes. Changing doesn’t alter the object, but it offers a new view.

    With that in mind, if you ever get the chance to check out Peterson’s The Message (disclaimer: I have no affiliation with the author or publisher – I just kind of like the paraphrase, which is the only reason I keep pushing it), or another translation, do consider approaching the “discrepancies” from the angle that they might simply be different interpretations based on different perspectives. This has actually been an important step in my spiritual growth from an agnostic to a convinced Christian.

    Gotta run. Thanks for the conversation. I’ll check back later.

  13. Thanks so much for all the time you spend getting this very important information out. I was raised under several faiths at various times and I think that was partially the reason why I think all religions are bogus. A friend of mine says, Religion is the lie that men tell on God, and I believe that wholeheartedly. I’ll be linking to you whenever I can! Thanks again!

  14. thewordofme says:

    Soul Rendezvous,

    Thank you for your kind words. I visited your blog and am impressed with it. Will visit more.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: