Spirituality
12 May 12
28 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI will repeat in easier language so even morons should be able to understand.
Are you being deliberately obtuse here? Everyone here on the evolution side has said evolution does not have to answer the beginnings of life but like I said, you cannot get past that. Evolution MUST explain the origin of life. NO IT DOESN'T and it never will. Get that through your thick and self cauterized skull.
I assume you cannot accept that because in your mind that would be capitulating to the entire evolutionary scam, right?
EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXIST, SO EVOLUTION CAN NOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING.
29 May 12
7 edits
Originally posted by finnegan
In case we forget Jaywill, if one were to insist on treating Genesis as a literally true account of the origin of the planet and its life forms, then it would be flatly in contradiction with the scientific account, since the formation of our star, the Sun, was followed ( and not preceded) by the fashioning of planets from debris floating in orbit around the ...[text shortened]... sect centred in the USA has that delusion and is seeking to promote it as a serious proposition.
In case we forget Jaywill, if one were to insist on treating Genesis as a literally true account of the origin of the planet and its life forms, then it would be flatly in contradiction with the scientific account,
I take it as true without being exhaustive. I asked for specific contradictions. So far I don't see any.
since the formation of our star, the Sun, was followed ( and not preceded) by the fashioning of planets from debris floating in orbit around the Sun, acting under both the gravitational pull of the Sun itself and the gravitational attraction of the matter in orbit.
I do not see anything in this paragraph that would cause a problem to me with Genesis chapter 1.
And on the contrary, it would be somewhat in harmony with other passages on creation elsewhere in the Bible. We should remember that there exists other passages on creation in the Bible.
For example, Zechariah 12:1 I think would speak of the heavens being stretched out before the forming of the earth:
"The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus declares Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him."
Both utterances are somewhat poetic, non-exhaustive, and therefore I see no scientific fact known that contradicts the Bible on the creation of the universe.
In its early years ( and that means lots of years measured by orbits of the Sun, whose light would have shone brightly) the Earth would have been extremely hot and massive forces would have been at work, making it physically impossible for a layer of water to have formed on its surface until the planet cooled. The process by which earth acquired an atmosphere and ....
That is all well and good. However, we first see the earth as waste and void. And we are told God created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning."
Between the time God created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning" and the time the seer observes the earth waste and void, I think there is room for a molten hot earth.
The account is simply not exhaustive. If God wanted to tell us an exhaustive account of how He created everything then maybe there would be 66 chapters just discribing water or air.
I see no necessary contradiction.
I am not bothering to look this all up or recite it all. It is crazy to say that Genesis is compatible with the scientific account. Jaywill does not have to accept the scientific account but he does have to accept that it flatly contradicts Genesis.
1.) The account in Genesis brief and poetic. It is not the only utterance on God's creation in the Bible.
2.) I have seen nothing that insists on its incorrectness in some "totally" and "flatly" contradiction.
The Bible is still the word of God if it didn't tell us what is on the dark side of the moon. The Bible is still the word of God if it does not tell us what is in some crevice on the moon of Saturn. And the Bible is still the word of God if some details of the ancient past are not exhaustively described.
We know He created the universe "in the beginning" . And the prophetic seer sees selected details in an economical way. It communicates that God is a God of order and that He prepared the earth for man.
I honestly don't think details about a hot molten earth for however long a time, if that be a detail of earth history, renders the Bible flatly and totally wrong about God's creation.
Exodus 20:11 does say God MADE the heavens and the earth in six days. But the word in Hebrew for made there can also be understood as appoint. And it is also used for such things as trimming one's finger nails or preparing a meal to be eaten.
Strictly speaking, we are only told that God CREATED the universe "in the beginning."
30 May 12
Originally posted by finneganYou are speaking of a hypothesis that have not been proven as scientific fact. It is all based on speculations and assumptions. If the Earth was created in the beginning, as the Holy Bible says it was, then without a sun or stars the heaven above the earth would be very cold and would have cooled the Earth very fast, and besides that, God had the power to heat it up or cool it down at will. Anyone can do speculations and make opinions; but God's word is truth.
In case we forget Jaywill, if one were to insist on treating Genesis as a literally true account of the origin of the planet and its life forms, then it would be flatly in contradiction with the scientific account, since the formation of our star, the Sun, was followed ( and not preceded) by the fashioning of planets from debris floating in orbit around the ...[text shortened]... sect centred in the USA has that delusion and is seeking to promote it as a serious proposition.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
30 May 12
Originally posted by finneganYou are speaking of a hypothesis that have not been proven as scientific fact. It is all based on speculations and assumptions. If the Earth was created in the beginning, as the Holy Bible says it was, then without a sun or stars the heaven above the earth would be very cold and would have cooled the Earth very fast, and besides that, God had the power to heat it up or cool it down at will. Anyone can do speculations and make opinions; but God's word is truth.
In case we forget Jaywill, if one were to insist on treating Genesis as a literally true account of the origin of the planet and its life forms, then it would be flatly in contradiction with the scientific account, since the formation of our star, the Sun, was followed ( and not preceded) by the fashioning of planets from debris floating in orbit around the ...[text shortened]... sect centred in the USA has that delusion and is seeking to promote it as a serious proposition.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
30 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsAre you forgetting the bible is just a compilations of works selected by the council of Nicea around the year 350? There were many other works rejected, since they were selected by men, they may have rejected other so-called god inspired books too, like the book of Judas which tells a way different story of Judas. Also rejected was the Gnostic books and you have no way of knowing which one of the books actually selected was really inspired by your god. God did not set up the council at Nicea, men did. Of course it was men who invented your god too but that's another story.
You are speaking of a hypothesis that have not been proven as scientific fact. It is all based on speculations and assumptions. If the Earth was created in the beginning, as the Holy Bible says it was, then without a sun or stars the heaven above the earth would be very cold and would have cooled the Earth very fast, and besides that, God had the power to ...[text shortened]... n do speculations and make opinions; but God's word is truth.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
30 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseYour opinion is not science or God's word. So you are acting as a fool, thinking you are wise in your own eyes.
Are you forgetting the bible is just a compilations of works selected by the council of Nicea around the year 350? There were many other works rejected, since they were selected by men, they may have rejected other so-called god inspired books too, like the book of Judas which tells a way different story of Judas. Also rejected was the Gnostic books and you ...[text shortened]... cil at Nicea, men did. Of course it was men who invented your god too but that's another story.
30 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillIn case we forget Jaywill, if one were to insist on treating Genesis as a literally true account of the origin of the planet and its life forms, then it would be flatly in contradiction with the scientific account,
I take it as true without being exhaustive. I asked for specific contradictions. So far I don't see any.
[quote]
si only told that God [b]CREATED the universe "in the beginning." [/b]
I honestly don't think details about a hot molten earth for however long a time, if that be a detail of earth history, renders the Bible flatly and totally wrong about God's creation.
Exodus 20:11 does say God MADE the heavens and the earth in six days. But the word in Hebrew for made there can also be understood as appoint. And it is also used for such things as trimming one's finger nails or preparing a meal to be eaten.
Strictly speaking, we are only told that God CREATED the universe "in the beginning."
Well this is highly convenient and jesuitical in the extreme. You choose not to defend the indefensible on this occasion and that's okay in itself. However, if you are quite this laid back about the alleged conflict between the factual claims of the bible and the evdience of science, I fail to see on what basis you find it necessary to debate the truth of stuff like evolution in the terms that you do. You could just take the same line as most other Christians, accept the scientific evidence for what it is, and accept that the bible is not a factual account of the creation, but a mythical one (not in the sense of being untrue, but in the sense of not even claiming to deal with material reality). A statement like "God created the World" is simply not capable of conflicting with any scientific evidence whatever - it is not a factual statement about material reality even if it seems to be. It would spare us all a lot of futile, empty rhetoric and a lot of references to third rate, dishonest, manipulative propoganda placed on YouTube by people lacking your apparent relaxed attitude.
I am aware that the acceptance of science does not remove the importance of moral and ethical issues arising, not least the pernicious use of evolutionary theories to promote racist thinking, which you have referred to and I also deplore. But ethical and moral issues also arise from nuclear weapons for example, which are not resolved by denying the science. Ethical and moral issues arise in medical science every day, such as the review of painful and often unpromising intensive care treatments for infants, which are also not resolved by reading the bible. These and other currently important debates need people with open minds, not people with closed minds.
30 May 12
Originally posted by finneganYou don't seem to understand that people like jaywill and myself believe the Holy Bible to be truly inspired scripture from God. Therefore, when a story is not identified as a parable or such, then in all likelihood it really happened. So God really did create the heavens and the Earth and this God is revealed in the New Testatment as being Christ when this statement is repeated in reference to Him.
[quote] I honestly don't think details about a hot molten earth for however long a time, if that be a detail of earth history, renders the Bible flatly and totally wrong about God's creation.
[b]Exodus 20:11 does say God MADE the heavens and the earth in six days. But the word in Hebrew for made there can also be understood as a ...[text shortened]... r currently important debates need people with open minds, not people with closed minds.
30 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you forgetting the bible is just a compilations of works selected by the council of Nicea around the year 350? There were many other works rejected, since they were selected by men, they may have rejected other so-called god inspired books too, like the book of Judas which tells a way different story of Judas. Also rejected was the Gnostic books and you ...[text shortened]... cil at Nicea, men did. Of course it was men who invented your god too but that's another story.
Are you forgetting the bible is just a compilations of works selected by the council of Nicea around the year 350?
Changing the subject to something else you know little about.
The Hebrew Bible was not compiled at the council of Nicea. That's 39 books of the Bible. Maybe you "forgot".
And just because you want to include any and everything in the books recognized as apostolic and inspired doesn't mean the ancient Christian brothers wanted to.
Sure, maybe you wish Self Magazine followed the Gospel of Luke. But some people have spiritual discerment and could separate the wheat from the chaff.
So you wish your New Testament contained the apochyphal Gospel of Judas ? What handy dandy escape route is provided for your sinful nature there that you grasp for that book? You don't need any forgery "Gospel of Judas". You can find your salvation in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
First Half of First Century:
In the first half of the second century the apostolic writings became generally known and circulated. The original apostles had passed off the scene, and their teachings were carried on through written copies instead of their voices.
At this time almost every New Testament book was already cited as Scripture excplicitly. The writings of ecclesiastical writers in their quotations up to A.D. 150 reveal the extent to which most of the NT books were already considered inspired Scripture above common religious prose.
The so-called "Fathers" were already appealing authoritatively to most of the NT canon to resolve disputes with heretical groups, dialogues with heathen, and exhortations against vice.
Second Half of the Second Century:
In this period New Testament books were widely recognized as Scripture in the same way the Old Testament was. In missionary activity both Old and New Testament books were used and translated into other languages. Commentaries began to appear on those books considered Scripture also. Papias was already writing commentary of all four Gospels in Exposition of the Lord's Oracles. Melito wrote a commentary on the Apocalypse of John, the book of Revelation. The writings of the Fathers make frequent use of citations of the New Testament. They are quoting apostolic Scripture as authoritative profusely long before Nicea.
The Muratorium Fragment (c. 170) lists all but five books of the modern New Testament. "No conclusive evidence against the inclusion of the five missing books can be made from this fragment, as it is what its name implies, "incomplete."
Third Century:
During time the books already cited as authoritive are collected into a single catalog of "recognized books". They are separated from plethura of other species of Christian liturature. The books are translated and used for missionary activity. Commentaries continue to be expounded upon crucial writings considered already Scripture of the new covenant.
During this period other Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical writings emerge. The abundance of religious liturature gave rise to the sorting and sifting tests to all religious liturature in the church. These tests led to the ultimate recognition of the NT canon. And the tests erased doubts in the minds of most concerning the Antilegomena books of the New Testament.
Fourh Century:
Canon of New Testament books of fully settled. The writings of the Fathers present the general agreement of all Christians on the NT canon.
There were many other works rejected, since they were selected by men, they may have rejected other so-called god inspired books too, like the book of Judas which tells a way different story of Judas. Also rejected was the Gnostic books and you have no way of knowing which one of the books actually selected was really inspired by your god. God did not set up the council at Nicea, men did. Of course it was men who invented your god too but that's another story.
Sincerely interested readers are advized to consult experts like Bruce Metzger for a history of the formation of the NT canon.
Ie. The Text of the New Testament, Bruce M. Metzger
He is a world renown expert on the subject matter.
30 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd yet I do understand.
You don't seem to understand that people like jaywill and myself believe the Holy Bible to be truly inspired scripture from God. Therefore, when a story is not identified as a parable or such, then in all likelihood it really happened. So God really did create the heavens and the Earth and this God is revealed in the New Testatment as being Christ when this statement is repeated in reference to Him.
30 May 12
9 edits
Originally posted by finnegan[/b] That's a nice summary of your views. But I didn't see anything which "flatly and totally" contradicts Genesis chapter 1. Now if you were talking about the earth not being on the backs of four giant turtles, then I might say that that flatly contradicts some pagan cosmogony, but not the Bible.
[quote] I honestly don't think details about a hot molten earth for however long a time, if that be a detail of earth history, renders the Bible flatly and totally wrong about God's creation.
[b]Exodus 20:11 does say God MADE the heavens and the earth in six days. But the word in Hebrew for made there can also be understood as a r currently important debates need people with open minds, not people with closed minds.
At most, if you want to make issue of a hot molten earth with a shortage of cloud cover, I could say it is a detail not included the economy of the account.
Then again neither is mentioned continental drift, tectonic plates, Van Allen Belts, Moon's gravitational effect on the ocean, possible formation of the moon from the earth, etc.
Details theorized (with some evidence) not included in the concise overview of six days if reformation (and further creation) of something apparently ill-formed or even damaged (as far as mankind's existence is concerned).
But just to give you something to think about, let's take the issue of dinosaurs. Now no one can deny that dinosaurs lived. If so why no mention of dinosaurs in Genesis ?
Recently it has come to my attention that the English translation of Genesis 1:21 varies and that the Hebrew should be looked at in greater detail -
On the fifth day God catagorized some animals as gedolim taninim. In several English translations taninim is rendered words like "whales" or "alligators" or "sea monsters" even "dragons". The word gedolim means big. The word taninim is in question.
The Hebrew word taninim is used in Exodus 7. But when God spoke to Moses from the burning bush when giving him instructions about how to lead the Israelites from Egypt nahash was used. The incapable feeling Moses was told to show several supernatural signs. One of these was that upon throwing it down, his shepherd's staff would become a snake. In Exodus 4:3 the word nahash is clearly the Hebrew word of snake. - Thus Exodus 4:3 - "it became a nahash".
This was God's denomstration to Moses. Now when Moses performed the sign in Exodus 7:10 we are told that the shepherd's staff, upon being thrown on the ground - "it became a taneen". Why did it not become a nahash, a SNAKE ? Why does it say it became a taneen?
Stay with me. Now in Exodus 7:15 God instructs and reminds Moses of what occured in Exodus 7:10:
"Get to Pharoah in the morning, behold he goes to the water, and stand by the river's edge and the staff which turned into a nahash take in your hand."
The same staff is therefore said to have turned into -
1.) a nahash - snake
2.) a taneen - - - - - (reptile ?)
3.) a nahash - snake
The Hebrew word taneen must be a general category of anumals since it appears in the creation chapter of Genesis. It must be a catagory within which nahash is a member. Therefore, we could understand Genesis 1:21 to mean by "taninim gedolim" as big taninim, ie. big reptiles.
An admissible translation of Genesis 1:21 could therefore be "And God created the big reptiles".
Modern science theory has it that the dinosaurs included the biggest reptiles. Big reptiles, and reptiles in general, are the catagory within which snakes occur.
"The biggest reptiles were the dinosaurs. But the author of Genesis did not specify dinosaurs directly, because that would have been inconsistent with the pattern of the chapter. The entire account of Genesis is stated in terms of objects known or knowable to the myriad of witnesses present at Sinai 3,300 years ago. Dinosaurs were not part of their world. But the hint, along with so many other hints, was there in the text for later generations to disscover."
G.L. Scheoder
Dinosaurs, though not part of our present world, may have been hinted at in Genesis. And your molten earth possibly also could be alluded to when it says that the earth was waste and empty - generally not fit for life and human beings to yet thrive upon.