Skeptics of the Bible know that the Genesis account about Noah’s Flood clearly describes a Deluge which covered the entire earth, any sixth grader can read it and will say that is what is written, no argument there, unless you’re a Christian who wants to shoehorn billions of years of earth history (with Noah’s Flood being only a river-flood or the limited sea level rise at the end of the Ice Age) into the Genesis account.
Of course, Bible skeptics love that Christians feel compelled to accomodate the timeline proponed by Darwin, Lyell, and Hutton, because this surely erodes the credibility of the Bible in the public eye, these Christians are doing good work for those skeptics who seek to establish that the Bible is not real history, like pawns of the Darwinists to undermine faith in the Bible.
So what would Jesus say about the Genesis account? He referred to it often, as actual history, when He was physically on the earth 2,000 years ago, but now, would He say that science has busted the Bible, that those Bible stories were really old tired shepherds’ tales which are now outdated and proven impossible because of modern science?
Would He say that there really were not ten generations from Adam to Noah, saying too that God (He) was just kidding about Noah’s Flood, that it really was just a flooding of the Tigris or Euphrates Rivers, recorded as a global flood by ignorant grandstanding shepherds? And would He say that there really were not ten generations from Noah to Abraham, actually, more like a hundred?
I think any self-respecting preacher would contemplate this and say that Jesus would stand up for what is plainly written in Genesis, after all, He often referred to Genesis history, and never suggested that it’s mythology, dreamed-up by sun-stroked Middle Eastern nomads, so according to what is written, Jesus, the Word, supports Genesis history.
Jesus is the Word, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, so how could the Word lie about the Word? Where would the consistency be?
Posted by dancingfromgenesis
Posted by dancingfromgenesis
Posted by dancingfromgenesis
Rudy Giuliani for School Choice for Low Income Families to Help Solve U.S. Education Woes by Encouragement of Competition for Better Schools for all U.S. Citizens
October 30, 2007Picture a family of four in an inner city, dad makes about fifty grand a year, mom works at home with a small side business, and they can’t afford anything but public school for their kids, a school which they see as woefully lacking.
But Rudy Giuliani propones school choice for these families, receiving perhaps eight grand per year per child to be used only to send the kids to a private school if they so desire. Families line-up to get their kids in pilot programs for choice, which are huge successes, but the public school lobby screams and hollers at these pilot programs, because they know their public schools can’t compete against these private schools.
So, lower income people, would you like to have about eight grand per year per child to send them to a good school? And when many families begin to benefit from this, the public schools will get the message and begin to improve their product, good ol’ supply and demand.
Rudy has a big advantage over Hillary on this issue. Hillary wants government school monopoly, thus insuring the continuance of mediocrity (at best), while Rudy seeks school choice which will result in better schools. Spread the word, Hillary loses big on this.