User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:00:23 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: not the Creator who was there and revealed infallibility what happened This is where your theory is flawed. Did God create a the written history? Nope. There was no written history. Some people wrote some things and told stories. That information got passed from generation and generation until much later when other humans decided they would try to put it all together. Just like with the telephone game what actually happened or was said is not what people hear, repeat, or can articulate later. You are ignoring what we can still observe today with our eyes while believing something that wasn't even written down thousands of years ago as infallible. That's your choice and it is obvious that nothing will change your opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:02:07 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The big bang and whole evolution process follow a very similar path to the creation story Genesis. Light dark Land, sea, sky formed next Plants started growing Life started in the water Life moved to land Humans came into existence again we get in to differences with gen 1 and gen 2 Gen 1 follows the order you set out but gen 2 says God made man and then made friends for him... In the day that the Lord[a] God made the earth and the heavens,(we get another different interpretation of a day and the chronology of events here) 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground,[b] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.... 18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:05:09 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The big bang and whole evolution process follow a very similar path to the creation story Genesis. Light dark Land, sea, sky formed next Plants started growing Life started in the water Life moved to land Humans came into existence Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So all of academia is wrong? Every scientist on earth that studies archeology, geology, anthropology, physics,etc is wrong? The Hubble telescope is wrong? The James Webb telescope is wrong? All the experimentation that independent labs replicate daily are wrong? And your old book is right. That's what you expect us to believe? You've sure got your work cut out for yourself to actually demonstrate your claims to be true. Yes they're all wrong , mostly because, like you , they're all Atheists They're such geniuses , they believe nothing created everything The Big Bang theory aligns perfectly with "Let there be light" It's exactly what someone would look for the prove Genesis 1:3. The big bang and whole evolution process follow a very similar path to the creation story Genesis. Light dark Land, sea, sky formed next Plants started growing Life started in the water Life moved to land Humans came into existence That's right. There are no serious or obvious discrepencies between the two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:07:41 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's an assertion without proof, the church did in fact for almost 2,000 years believe in a young earth and 6 days of creation. St. Augustine argued for an allegorical interpretation of the six days, based primarily on the text of the Bible, 1600 years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:09:26 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is where your theory is flawed. Did God create a the written history? Nope. There was no written history. Some people wrote some things and told stories. That information got passed from generation and generation until much later when other humans decided they would try to put it all together. Just like with the telephone game what actually happened or was said is not what people hear, repeat, or can articulate later. You are ignoring what we can still observe today with our eyes while believing something that wasn't even written down thousands of years ago as infallible. That's your choice and it is obvious that nothing will change your opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:11:53 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No flaw at all, if you start with the axiom that the bible is true. Christians believe the first 5 books were written by Moses, who was talking to God, face to face, and God revealed to Him those scriptures. We're consistent, I'm consistent on this. YEC also endeavor to show that what we know about the natural world is consistent with Genesis. You just don't believe the bible, what is your fundamental axiom? Atheistic science is true? Something else? I think the axiom would be that YEC understanding and interpretation is flawed beyond reconciliation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:14:59 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: St. Augustine argued for an allegorical interpretation of the six days, based primarily on the text of the Bible, 1600 years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:15:10 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: again we get in to differences with gen 1 and gen 2 Gen 1 follows the order you set out but gen 2 says God made man and then made friends for him... In the day that the Lord[a] God made the earth and the heavens,(we get another different interpretation of a day and the chronology of events here) 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground,[b] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.... 18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The big bang and whole evolution process follow a very similar path to the creation story Genesis. Light dark Land, sea, sky formed next Plants started growing Life started in the water Life moved to land Humans came into existence again we get in to differences with gen 1 and gen 2 Gen 1 follows the order you set out but gen 2 says God made man and then made friends for him... In the day that the Lord[a] God made the earth and the heavens,(we get another different interpretation of a day and the chronology of events here) 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground,[b] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.... 18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. I think the version of the Bible used creates some of that difference, which proves my point about the telephone game post at the top of this page. The NIV version says "God had formed" in vs 19 meaning the birds and animals were previously created and he was just now just bringing them to him to be named. Verse 18 just seems out of order. It should be in the middle of verse 20. Again generations of story telling into multiple languages before ever being written down and then translated multiple times after that could account for the details getting moved around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:15:34 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's an assertion without proof, the church did in fact for almost 2,000 years believe in a young earth and 6 days of creation. The church also held that Geocentricity was the structure of the Universe, with the Sun and planets and stars moving about the Earth.....until the evidence began to suggest (and then prove) otherwise. At no point was believing the Earth as being the physical center of the Universe, or the Earth being ~6000 years old, key to your Salvation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:16:09 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the axiom would be that YEC understanding and interpretation is flawed beyond reconciliation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:16:49 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Scientism is the belief that science can logically make anything known. We don't like that, but it's a part of reality. I have opinions based on observation and experiment, I read my service manuals, but I now know that you can't rationally say "I know the truth of reality" on the basis of them. That is the modern perversion of science, whereby people erroneously think that physics can address metaphysics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:18:41 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The church also held that Geocentricity was the structure of the Universe, with the Sun and planets and stars moving about the Earth.....until the evidence began to suggest (and then prove) otherwise. At no point was believing the Earth as being the physical center of the Universe, or the Earth being ~6000 years old, key to your Salvation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:19:35 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No flaw at all, if you start with the axiom that the bible is true. Christians believe the first 5 books were written by Moses, who was talking to God, face to face, and God revealed to Him those scriptures. We're consistent, I'm consistent on this. YEC also endeavor to show that what we know about the natural world is consistent with Genesis. You just don't believe the bible, what is your fundamental axiom? Atheistic science is true? Something else? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This is where your theory is flawed. Did God create a the written history? Nope. There was no written history. Some people wrote some things and told stories. That information got passed from generation and generation until much later when other humans decided they would try to put it all together. Just like with the telephone game what actually happened or was said is not what people hear, repeat, or can articulate later. You are ignoring what we can still observe today with our eyes while believing something that wasn't even written down thousands of years ago as infallible. That's your choice and it is obvious that nothing will change your opinion. What you describe is faith and your personal opinion. You are free to believe whatever you want. It is interesting that you act like you know God's actions, all his plans, his original words, and are authorized to speak infallibly on God's behalf. You are just a fallible human just like every other human that relayed the various stories over time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:19:56 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the version of the Bible used creates some of that difference, which proves my point about the telephone game post at the top of this page. The NIV version says "God had formed" in vs 19 meaning the birds and animals were previously created and he was just now just bringing them to him to be named. Verse 18 just seems out of order. It should be in the middle of verse 20. Again generations of story telling into multiple languages before ever being written down and then translated multiple times after that could account for the details getting moved around. that quote was using the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition which I have generally decided to go with as it incorporates lessons learned from dead sea scroll translations and is the officially approved version for the Catholic church. NIV 5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.... 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. I'm not sure that the wording necessarily changes the chronology but you have a point, bible gateway alone lets you select from 62 different versions of the bible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:22:31 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The church also held that Geocentricity was the structure of the Universe, with the Sun and planets and stars moving about the Earth.....until the evidence began to suggest (and then prove) otherwise. At no point was believing the Earth as being the physical center of the Universe, or the Earth being ~6000 years old, key to your Salvation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's an assertion without proof, the church did in fact for almost 2,000 years believe in a young earth and 6 days of creation. The church also held that Geocentricity was the structure of the Universe, with the Sun and planets and stars moving about the Earth.....until the evidence began to suggest (and then prove) otherwise. At no point was believing the Earth as being the physical center of the Universe, or the Earth being ~6000 years old, key to your Salvation. So, what does the earth being the center of the universe even mean? What significance does this play into the creation accounting in the Bible or for any other purpose that a man might build upon at the present? Can modern science make a claim such as this today? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:24:43 PM EDT
[#16]
OP is retarded...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:29:10 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except that many of those scientists are religious. Astronomy itself is rooted in religion. You can believe in the big bang and also that it is just a more detailed explanation of God said let there be light. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:29:42 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Big Bang theory aligns perfectly with "Let there be light" It's exactly what someone would look for the prove Genesis 1:3. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:29:50 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: that quote was using the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition which I have generally decided to go with as it incorporates lessons learned from dead sea scroll translations. NIV 5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.... 18 The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think the version of the Bible used creates some of that difference, which proves my point about the telephone game post at the top of this page. The NIV version says "God had formed" in vs 19 meaning the birds and animals were previously created and he was just now just bringing them to him to be named. Verse 18 just seems out of order. It should be in the middle of verse 20. Again generations of story telling into multiple languages before ever being written down and then translated multiple times after that could account for the details getting moved around. that quote was using the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition which I have generally decided to go with as it incorporates lessons learned from dead sea scroll translations. NIV 5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.... 18 The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. How many times were the stories passed from generation to generation and translated before making it to the dead sea scrolls? They date back to hundreds of years BC which would mean they were passed down for several thousand years prior to that. What does the small variation between Gen 1 and Gen 2 mean to the overall story of creation and the idea that everything in our modern translation should be considered 100% accurate? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:30:45 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the version of the Bible used creates some of that difference, which proves my point about the telephone game post at the top of this page. Which is exactly my point in that the root of his issue stems from his asserting that the written Bible - some unspecified version thus far - is infallible. That is absolutely insane, and is evidence that the person is likely not open to any serious discussion. There is a separate treatment of infallibility that I myself subscribe to - which is that those elements necessary for salvation are maintained, meaning that the core message is preserved in a way that still serves its central purpose. All other ancillary elements, which includes specific phrasings, are all subject to the fallibility of men. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:40:09 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Read the article, then you might understand this issues involved. And it's not true that the church as a whole held to a geocentric view, that's flatly not historical, some did, most didn't. Uhhh.....what model did the "others" hold, then? Heliocentricity was pretty late to the game, historically.....which is why Ptolemy's model was held as true for so long (literally as soon as people recognize the Flat Earth model didn't fit). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:43:11 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryYeah I was aware of much of that. Generally everything we think we know is either inaccurate or outright wrong. Which further solidifies the point that we can not definitively state that the earth is only 6 thousand years old for that matter we can't really say it isn't either but nearly everything we have learned points away from young earth and towards an even older than previously thought universe. There have been further developments on the subject since the august 2022 article you posted. This emperors new clothes phenomenon has been an issue plaguing science and religion for ... ever |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 1:54:48 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which is exactly my point in that the root of his issue stems from his asserting that the written Bible - some unspecified version thus far - is infallible. That is absolutely insane, and is evidence that the person is likely not open to any serious discussion. There is a separate treatment of infallibility that I myself subscribe to - which is that those elements necessary for salvation are maintained, meaning that the core message is preserved in a way that still serves its central purpose. All other ancillary elements, which includes specific phrasings, are all subject to the fallibility of men. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think the version of the Bible used creates some of that difference, which proves my point about the telephone game post at the top of this page. Which is exactly my point in that the root of his issue stems from his asserting that the written Bible - some unspecified version thus far - is infallible. That is absolutely insane, and is evidence that the person is likely not open to any serious discussion. There is a separate treatment of infallibility that I myself subscribe to - which is that those elements necessary for salvation are maintained, meaning that the core message is preserved in a way that still serves its central purpose. All other ancillary elements, which includes specific phrasings, are all subject to the fallibility of men. I agree with everything you said. There is also one point of contention even with that focus, the thief on the cross. Jesus told him "today you will be with me in paradise." which means no baptism is needed, living a good moral life isn't required, good works are not required, attendance at church isn't required, offerings aren't required...everything else the churches teach is ancillary to just one thing, believing in Jesus. Then there is the "today" part, no waiting for the rapture to raised and would suggest that Jesus would be in Heaven that days as well instead of being dead, in the tomb, in the ground, in hell...etc. Biblical sites go on and on trying to offer explanations about the translation, punctuation, or the meanings of certain words in order to claim todays translation is 100% accurate. It takes away from the bigger part of the story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 2:10:17 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What you describe is faith and your personal opinion. You are free to believe whatever you want. It is interesting that you act like you know God's actions, all his plans, his original words, and are authorized to speak infallibly on God's behalf. You are just a fallible human just like every other human that relayed the various stories over time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 2:10:30 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree with everything you said. There is also one point of contention even with that focus, the thief on the cross. Jesus told him "today you will be with me in paradise." which means no baptism is needed, living a good moral life isn't required, good works are not required, attendance at church isn't required, offerings aren't required...everything else the churches teach is ancillary to just one thing, believing in Jesus. Then there is the "today" part, no waiting for the rapture to raised and would suggest that Jesus would be in Heaven that days as well instead of being dead, in the tomb, in the ground, in hell...etc. Biblical sites go on and on trying to offer explanations about the translation, punctuation, or the meanings of certain words in order to claim todays translation is 100% accurate. It takes away from the bigger part of the story. the thief on the cross not only believes Jesus is the son of God, he acknowledges and repents his sin. 39 One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding[i] him and saying, “Are you not the Messiah?[j] Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into[k] your kingdom.” 43 He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” of course that is Luke's telling, Matthew doesn't mention that. 42 “He saved others; he cannot save himself.[o] He is the King of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to; for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’” 44 The bandits who were crucified with him also taunted him in the same way. neither does Mark 32 Let the Messiah,[g] the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with him also taunted him. nor John 18 There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus between them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 2:12:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uhhh.....what model did the "others" hold, then? Heliocentricity was pretty late to the game, historically.....which is why Ptolemy's model was held as true for so long (literally as soon as people recognize the Flat Earth model didn't fit). Helio was around, there was another view, ill have to look it up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 2:16:19 PM EDT
[#27]
Criley, please tell us who inhabited the earth before Adam?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 2:21:52 PM EDT
[#28]
OP i did finally take the time to read the article you linked to.
I can agree that we should not so quickly discount biblical teachings, that there are certainly useful idiots out there... It's difficult for me to say the article really offers much of anything beyond opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 2:28:46 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Big Bang theory aligns perfectly with "Let there be light" It's exactly what someone would look for the prove Genesis 1:3. The Big Bang THEORY is wrong Not to throw too much shade but Lerner has been writing that the big bang is wrong since I was in diapers and.... isn't particularly well thought of because his data is... unconvincing. I haven't seen any other sources outside of a few click bait channels backing this up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 2:31:59 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And Augustine's view led him to instant creation, not billions of years creation. I respect Augustine a lot, but his view, I don't believe, was the majority view of the the church through history. Now history must subject itself to God's word of course, but church history is important to our understanding of what brethren believed about things, lest we make the same mistakes over and over again. I'd argue that the concept of instantaneous creation squares pretty well with the big bang theory, but thats not really the point. The point is that your assertion that the church, all of it, believed in a literal six day creation for 1800 years is flat wrong. Augustine wasn't writing in a vacuum; the question of what was literal and what was allegorical was heavily debated at the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 2:41:49 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd argue that the concept of instantaneous creation squares pretty well with the big bang theory, but thats not really the point. The point is that your assertion that the church, all of it, believed in a literal six day creation for 1800 years is flat wrong. Augustine wasn't writing in a vacuum; the question of what was literal and what was allegorical was heavily debated at the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 2:44:11 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not to throw too much shade but Lerner has been writing that the big bang is wrong since I was in diapers and.... isn't particularly well thought of because his data is... unconvincing. I haven't seen any other sources outside of a few click bait channels backing this up. Here are a few other sources which are basically saying that it's not that big bang is wrong more so our theory of galactic evolution  JWST Observations Completely Break Galactic Evolution Models...But Prove Big Bang Correct https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/acec76 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-023-02078-7 https://ras.ac.uk/news-and-press/news/galaxy-mergers-shed-light-galactic-evolution-model |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 2:49:53 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd argue that the concept of instantaneous creation squares pretty well with the big bang theory, but thats not really the point. The point is that your assertion that the church, all of it, believed in a literal six day creation for 1800 years is flat wrong. Augustine wasn't writing in a vacuum; the question of what was literal and what was allegorical was heavily debated at the time. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And Augustine's view led him to instant creation, not billions of years creation. I respect Augustine a lot, but his view, I don't believe, was the majority view of the the church through history. Now history must subject itself to God's word of course, but church history is important to our understanding of what brethren believed about things, lest we make the same mistakes over and over again. I'd argue that the concept of instantaneous creation squares pretty well with the big bang theory, but thats not really the point. The point is that your assertion that the church, all of it, believed in a literal six day creation for 1800 years is flat wrong. Augustine wasn't writing in a vacuum; the question of what was literal and what was allegorical was heavily debated at the time. I believe that one of the assertions of Augustine was that the ancient hebrew which the Genesis account was written in shows the word for "day" in ancient hebrew equates to a literal 24 hour period like that of what we know and understand today. However, is there an ancient Hebrew word for a situation or meaning according to a day meaning an era or a timespan that is longer than a literal 24 hour day like we know and understand it now? I don't believe that there is. Could ancient man understood it like we do today in the sense of it being metaphorical and not literal, as man could have understood those sorts of things back then? I say maybe yes and maybe no. For many, probably not. They were no very similar to modern day man without the tools to help him understand such differences. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 2:55:07 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe that one of the assertions of Augustine was that the ancient hebrew which the Genesis account was written in shows the word for "day" in ancient hebrew equates to a literal 24 hour period like that of what we know and understand today. However, is there an ancient Hebrew word for a situation or meaning according to a day meaning an era or a timespan that is longer than a literal 24 hour day like we know and understand it now? I don't believe that there is. there is no earth or sun for there to be a day. quoting wikipedia here out of laziness but I am sure you can dig if you care Although yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans: Point of time (a specific day) time period of a whole or half a day: Period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset General term for time ( as in 'days of our lives') A year "lived a lot of days" Time period of unspecified length. "days and days" there were very few words in ancient hebrew compare to modern. So you shouldn't really be looking for alternate words but rather alternate meanings for the same word. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 2:58:36 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's right. There are no serious or obvious discrepencies between the two. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So all of academia is wrong? Every scientist on earth that studies archeology, geology, anthropology, physics,etc is wrong? The Hubble telescope is wrong? The James Webb telescope is wrong? All the experimentation that independent labs replicate daily are wrong? And your old book is right. That's what you expect us to believe? You've sure got your work cut out for yourself to actually demonstrate your claims to be true. Yes they're all wrong , mostly because, like you , they're all Atheists They're such geniuses , they believe nothing created everything The Big Bang theory aligns perfectly with "Let there be light" It's exactly what someone would look for the prove Genesis 1:3. The big bang and whole evolution process follow a very similar path to the creation story Genesis. Light dark Land, sea, sky formed next Plants started growing Life started in the water Life moved to land Humans came into existence That's right. There are no serious or obvious discrepencies between the two. There aren’t. They are different narratives and styles, neither can be claimed to be a detailed scientific explanation to fit our modern desires, but Gen 1 and 2 accounts don’t conflict, there’s potentially information we don’t have that would make it make more sense, but we can speculate. The Gen 2 account seems to be about the formation of Eden, “earth” in verse 5 can be translated as land, or you could say in this account the plants etc. were created between verses 5 and 7. Everything after verse 7 occurred in Eden and it could be that God was demonstrating his creative power to Adam, as it never says it was the first time he created plants and animals etc. But the narrative and story structure is ancient and comes obviously from an oral tradition, as Christians we believe the text as recorded by Moses is scripture, so there was no “telephone game” going on when it was written. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 3:17:11 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I didn't say all of it, never happened. Vast majority, yep. I doubt you have the data required to back up your claim that the vast majority believed in a literal 6 days, but it doesn't really matter, does it? The point is that some of the most influential thinkers in the church have believed in an allegorical interpretation of the 6 days for thousands of years, and that it has never been considered a settled issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 3:36:29 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I doubt you have the data required to back up your claim that the vast majority believed in a literal 6 days, but it doesn't really matter, does it? The point is that some of the most influential thinkers in the church have believed in an allegorical interpretation of the 6 days for thousands of years, and that it has never been considered a settled issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 3:37:24 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am ignorant of where in the bible a straightforward ~complete chronology of the world can be found. Is there a simple case to be made from scripture? (asked in earnest) Yes. The Bible never says how old the earth is. It simply gives the time since Adam. Roughly 6,000 years of his generations. There’s a lot in the Bible most don’t understand due to faulty teachings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 3:43:36 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think I could come up with it. What they didn't belive is that the earth is billions of years old. Thats a modern invent by church people who have compromised by atheistic science. I am not sure what draw there even is for an atheist to science. If there is no creator or nothing beyond that which is why endeavor to pursue the knowledge of how things work and why they are what they are? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 3:55:42 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What version? Has it survived? This borderline, I knew a guy, who who a guy. There is a huge problem with inserting billions of years into the narrative. One of which, is that it makes reading Genesis 1 and 2, say what it doesn't really say. Days become billions of years. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I've said it before but our pastor when I was going through confirmation was an elderly guy who could read multiple languages. He said in an older version of the bible (I don't remember if he said greek or hebrew) it said period of time not day for the creation. If you make that change where it's not 24 hour days I don't see why creation and big bang theory/evolution can't coexist. Create the universe and let it run using a set of rules. I don't remember if I ever knew. It's been over 40 years. He mentioned the language it was in and that the word or words used were more period of time and modern translations use days. It wasn't something anyone made a big deal about but I thought it was interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 4:04:15 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am not sure what draw there even is for an atheist to science. If there is no creator or nothing beyond that which is why endeavor to pursue the knowledge of how things work and why they are what they are? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 4:08:36 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: my assertion would be that you are the one making incorrect assumptions. I did not say they contradict themselves, only that your understanding/explanation is contradictory in reading both. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Line them up and show how they contradict. Don't just assume it and hope others agree. my assertion would be that you are the one making incorrect assumptions. I did not say they contradict themselves, only that your understanding/explanation is contradictory in reading both. Ok. How -exactly - does saying that the bible says each reproduces after it's own kind, and/or that evolution says each can reproduce not it's kind ... contradict what you quoted? If you can't produce that, why would you post that they do? You're posing a contrdiction. I want to see why you say it's one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 4:11:43 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is where your theory is flawed. Did God create a the written history? Nope. There was no written history. Some people wrote some things and told stories. That information got passed from generation and generation until much later when other humans decided they would try to put it all together. Just like with the telephone game what actually happened or was said is not what people hear, repeat, or can articulate later. You are ignoring what we can still observe today with our eyes while believing something that wasn't even written down thousands of years ago as infallible. That's your choice and it is obvious that nothing will change your opinion. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: not the Creator who was there and revealed infallibility what happened This is where your theory is flawed. Did God create a the written history? Nope. There was no written history. Some people wrote some things and told stories. That information got passed from generation and generation until much later when other humans decided they would try to put it all together. Just like with the telephone game what actually happened or was said is not what people hear, repeat, or can articulate later. You are ignoring what we can still observe today with our eyes while believing something that wasn't even written down thousands of years ago as infallible. That's your choice and it is obvious that nothing will change your opinion. Are you presuming chinese whispers/teleophone game? If you are, are you presuming that it has to create false texts? "That we observe with our eyes" - you cannot find the truth about anything in reality by observation. That will always be irrational and thus produce no reason for "you should believe this." To be short and to the point about another failure of finding the truth about reality by observing it with our senses: Ok. Tell us how physical perception makes reality knowable. Have you even thought about it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 4:12:38 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is the modern perversion of science, whereby people erroneously think that physics can address metaphysics. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Scientism is the belief that science can logically make anything known. We don't like that, but it's a part of reality. I have opinions based on observation and experiment, I read my service manuals, but I now know that you can't rationally say "I know the truth of reality" on the basis of them. That is the modern perversion of science, whereby people erroneously think that physics can address metaphysics. I wish you were right. Have a look into history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 4:16:52 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Criley, please tell us who inhabited the earth before Adam? Keith Richards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 4:25:03 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am not sure what draw there even is for an atheist to science. If there is no creator or nothing beyond that which is why endeavor to pursue the knowledge of how things work and why they are what they are? First, lol. Second, just because you derive something from religion doesn't mean religion is necessary for that thing, this applies to all sorts of stuff. Third, Theism is revelation. Lots of people believe in divinities and deities and creators who are not theists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 4:25:14 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok. How -exactly - does saying that the bible says each reproduces after it's own kind, and/or that evolution says each can reproduce not it's kind ... contradict what you quoted? If you can't produce that, why would you post that they do? You're posing a contrdiction. I want to see why you say it's one. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Line them up and show how they contradict. Don't just assume it and hope others agree. my assertion would be that you are the one making incorrect assumptions. I did not say they contradict themselves, only that your understanding/explanation is contradictory in reading both. Ok. How -exactly - does saying that the bible says each reproduces after it's own kind, and/or that evolution says each can reproduce not it's kind ... contradict what you quoted? If you can't produce that, why would you post that they do? You're posing a contrdiction. I want to see why you say it's one. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here's why: (Genesis 1:11) Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. (Genesis 1:24-25) [24] Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. [25] God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Evolution does not mean only "offspring inherets changes" ... it must and does mean when used in this context (all life evolved from) that *those changes can make that offspring change kind." Evolution says "reproduces NOT its own kind." God says "reproduces its own kind." You cannot have both. It cannot work. You cannot make the two reconcile. You have to choose one or the other, or reject both. are we going with that infallible word or this one 18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. Line them up and show how they contradict. Don't just assume it and hope others agree. I asked which infallible word we were going with. You brought up contradiction. one chapter says each after their own kind, the other says he spoke them all in to being at once and didn't even name them just let Adam have at it. is cattle a specific species or is it the larger category of horned beast including oxen etc.... it mentions adam gives names to all the cattle, is that like blue bell and lucy or ox bison cow? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 4:28:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Keith Richards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 4:34:14 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I asked which infallible word we were going with. You brought up contradiction. one chapter says each after their own kind, the other says he spoke them all in to being at once and didn't even name them just let Adam have at it. is cattle a specific species or is it the larger category of horned beast including oxen etc.... it mentions adam gives names to all the cattle, is that like blue bell and lucy or ox bison cow? I guess you didn’t read my post on this page. The 2nd chapter is in Eden and can be interpreted as God bringing animals to Adam and displaying his creative power, it never says it was the first time he created animals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 4:34:16 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I asked which infallible word we were going with. You brought up contradiction. one chapter says each after their own kind, the other says he spoke them all in to being at once and didn't even name them just let Adam have at it. is cattle a specific species or is it the larger category of horned beast including oxen etc.... it mentions adam gives names to all the cattle, is that like blue bell and lucy or ox bison cow? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Line them up and show how they contradict. Don't just assume it and hope others agree. my assertion would be that you are the one making incorrect assumptions. I did not say they contradict themselves, only that your understanding/explanation is contradictory in reading both. Ok. How -exactly - does saying that the bible says each reproduces after it's own kind, and/or that evolution says each can reproduce not it's kind ... contradict what you quoted? If you can't produce that, why would you post that they do? You're posing a contrdiction. I want to see why you say it's one. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here's why: (Genesis 1:11) Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. (Genesis 1:24-25) [24] Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. [25] God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Evolution does not mean only "offspring inherets changes" ... it must and does mean when used in this context (all life evolved from) that *those changes can make that offspring change kind." Evolution says "reproduces NOT its own kind." God says "reproduces its own kind." You cannot have both. It cannot work. You cannot make the two reconcile. You have to choose one or the other, or reject both. are we going with that infallible word or this one 18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. Line them up and show how they contradict. Don't just assume it and hope others agree. I asked which infallible word we were going with. You brought up contradiction. one chapter says each after their own kind, the other says he spoke them all in to being at once and didn't even name them just let Adam have at it. is cattle a specific species or is it the larger category of horned beast including oxen etc.... it mentions adam gives names to all the cattle, is that like blue bell and lucy or ox bison cow? How does the one contradict the other? If they don't contradict, why did you post it? Can you explain how they do beyond quoting them and saying they do? What is one asserting that cannot be true if what another asserts is true? Quote the text. Show how the text itself says what you're saying it does. Than show the contradiction. I'm not going to do your work for you. ETA: if you can't explain something to anyone else, nobody has any reason to beleive what you're saying, and that's (IME) a good marker to think you don't know it yourself. I am not saying shutup, go away. I want you to actually do it. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
