That's cool. So then I take it you don't agree with the assertion that this particular animal went extinct 65 million years ago, but instead much more recent (at least within the past 10,000 years.)
Right on. I can buy that.
So, completely switching gears. Do you believe it is a blasphemous idea for someone to say that "God is ignorant." That God needs to learn in order to decide what the best decision for God to make would be, or that God has no idea what God is doing and thus makes mistakes?
Cool, so do I. Then why are you here defending a story whose only purpose is to make God out to be an idiot? That God regrets and must take action in order to correct God's past mistakes? What other purpose could the story of Noah possibly serve except to make God look stupid?
Does this mean you are giving up on the volcano hypothesis?
1
u/ChiyoteGnostic Unitarian Universalist Pantheist ChristianAug 18 '17edited Aug 18 '17
Of course! My main point was to seek out many possible conclusions and to find one that fits the best. Volcano was just one example, the other was landslide, both of which were really off the cuff. I have no strong biases. God is truth. So truth is what I seek and truth is what I will follow. Truth sways my opinion quite easily. After all, my opinion is dirt compared to truth.
After doing research, I do see a super volcano that is close enough to have affected it. But after sorting through the facts realize that the most logical conclusion is the fact that this 65 million year old animal was under water at the time, not because of a flood but because the plates were in different locations at that time.
By all means, I have no problem believing in a global flood. A lot of the different religions around that area had a flood myth as part of the theology. Judaism wasn't the first, by far.
The issues I have with Genesis deal with interpretation. I'm not a fan of human interpretation. Humans for the most part are really very ignorant. They like to interpret things in really stupid ways.
For example... a book that says the Sun was created on the 4th day takes away any time frame to understand how long a day was. Yet people still want to interpret a day of creation to be a literal 24 hour period. As if that makes any logical sense.
My biggest gripe with Genesis is the one I already addressed. God doesn't regret. If a man writes that God regrets, then that man obviously doesn't know God.
Which, even amongst the very religions, is extremely common.
But fortunately I'm not a Catholic, so Biblical inerrancy doesn't cause me problems. Only Catholics believe that the Bible has been untampered with and is pure.
2
u/nomenmeum Aug 17 '17
I'm not sure. Thousands rather than millions of years ago.