I'm not typically one to quote a particular section of the Bible or things of that nature. In fact, although I go to church I wouldn't consider myself so uptight about it- I view it as what I believe. I do not believe what I do because I'm a christian, but I am a christian because of what I believe.
But anyway, I've started to read the Bible, to see what it is really all about. I know a good amount of passages from it, but I've never really just sat down and read it myself. So anyway, I started with page 1.
When I started reading I realized something and it is VERY interesting.
I'd rather you read it and post a reply so you won't be seeing things that aren't there because I said there were. Just read through it:
http://kingjbible.com/genesis/1.htm
Here's a summary of the order things were made in:
- heaven and earth (it is worth noting here though that there is a different meaning of this earth and the latter earth- one seems like a specific mass, this one is a more general term)
- earth was void and darkness
- light was created
- water
- land
- vegetation
- seasons
- sea creatures
- land creatures
- man
Here's science's order
- mass
- big bang
- earth
- water
- land
- bacteria
- plants
- sea creatures
- land creatures
- man
(religion)- Genesis- Creation of the World
Yes, and it's quite amazing that the person who wrote Genesis, Moses, knew absolutely nothing about science's order, but was still able to write an account that has many similarities. And yet people still don't believe the Bible was inspired by God or that even God exists.
I was always under the impression that Genesis was an allegory.
Mistyshadow said:
"Yes, and it's quite amazing that the person who wrote Genesis, Moses, knew absolutely nothing about science's order, but was still able to write an account that has many similarities. And yet people still don't believe the Bible was inspired by God or that even God exists."I'm pretty sure that Moses didn't write Genesis...
The fact that there were two creation stories makes it hard for me to believe that. The second story was very focused around agricultural symbols (lots about vegetation, man is made of clay, and care for the earth in general) which would seem to imply that it was written by some sort of farmer around 950 BC. The first story of creation seemed to have been written by more of a priest figure in the manner that most people would have believed in their time period (around 550 BC) which was during the time that the Jews were under Babylonian rule. I don't see how they are connected in any way to Moses.
Also, the reason people don't believe the Bible is because there are so many contradictions within it that it seems impossible to believe. That said, most people don't know how to read the Bible and wither come out a fundamentalist or an atheist after finishing. It would also be in your best interest to note that in the first story of creation, god created animals before man, and in the second he created them after man.
"The main difference is that in the bible, things were just "created". In Science, things evolve and grow, not just poofed into existence like magic.""god said let there be..."
it technically never says created. Of course I'd have to go to the original text for how specific this is.
Anyway, I don't think it matters. Evolution is creation. Creation through change. If you make dough and then use that for pie are you not making pie? Is it neccessary to say it grew into a pie?
It doesn't exactly specify.
But anyway, my point is that, not even depending on your religious preference, the fact that this is how it was written, this order, considering the time period it was written vs. the actual time these things were discovered it pretty amazing. And it's not one of those stetched out things people say- it's completely straight forward.
"Gunner said:Thats my point, creation through change is alot more logical than creation through god just magically creating it in 7 days. Even though we have so much proof that it took billions of years for the universe to become what it is today."The main difference is that in the bible, things were just "created". In Science, things evolve and grow, not just poofed into existence like magic.""god said let there be..."
it technically never says created. Of course I'd have to go to the original text for how specific this is.
Anyway, I don't think it matters. Evolution is creation. Creation through change. If you make dough and then use that for pie are you not making pie? Is it neccessary to say it grew into a pie?
It doesn't exactly specify.
But anyway, my point is that, not even depending on your religious preference, the fact that this is how it was written, this order, considering the time period it was written vs. the actual time these things were discovered it pretty amazing. And it's not one of those stetched out things people say- it's completely straight forward."
"SmugDarkLoser said:"Gunner said:Thats my point, creation through change is alot more logical than creation through god just magically creating it in 7 days. Even though we have so much proof that it took billions of years for the universe to become what it is today.""The main difference is that in the bible, things were just "created". In Science, things evolve and grow, not just poofed into existence like magic.""god said let there be..."
it technically never says created. Of course I'd have to go to the original text for how specific this is.
Anyway, I don't think it matters. Evolution is creation. Creation through change. If you make dough and then use that for pie are you not making pie? Is it neccessary to say it grew into a pie?
It doesn't exactly specify.
But anyway, my point is that, not even depending on your religious preference, the fact that this is how it was written, this order, considering the time period it was written vs. the actual time these things were discovered it pretty amazing. And it's not one of those stetched out things people say- it's completely straight forward."
Define a day
"Gunner said:24 hours.. The term ment in the bible "rested on the 7th day" meaning the end of the week."SmugDarkLoser said:"Gunner said:Thats my point, creation through change is alot more logical than creation through god just magically creating it in 7 days. Even though we have so much proof that it took billions of years for the universe to become what it is today.""The main difference is that in the bible, things were just "created". In Science, things evolve and grow, not just poofed into existence like magic.""god said let there be..."
it technically never says created. Of course I'd have to go to the original text for how specific this is.
Anyway, I don't think it matters. Evolution is creation. Creation through change. If you make dough and then use that for pie are you not making pie? Is it neccessary to say it grew into a pie?
It doesn't exactly specify.
But anyway, my point is that, not even depending on your religious preference, the fact that this is how it was written, this order, considering the time period it was written vs. the actual time these things were discovered it pretty amazing. And it's not one of those stetched out things people say- it's completely straight forward."
Define a day"
"SmugDarkLoser said:"Gunner said:24 hours.. The term ment in the bible "rested on the 7th day" meaning the end of the week.""SmugDarkLoser said:"Gunner said:Thats my point, creation through change is alot more logical than creation through god just magically creating it in 7 days. Even though we have so much proof that it took billions of years for the universe to become what it is today.""The main difference is that in the bible, things were just "created". In Science, things evolve and grow, not just poofed into existence like magic.""god said let there be..."
it technically never says created. Of course I'd have to go to the original text for how specific this is.
Anyway, I don't think it matters. Evolution is creation. Creation through change. If you make dough and then use that for pie are you not making pie? Is it neccessary to say it grew into a pie?
It doesn't exactly specify.
But anyway, my point is that, not even depending on your religious preference, the fact that this is how it was written, this order, considering the time period it was written vs. the actual time these things were discovered it pretty amazing. And it's not one of those stetched out things people say- it's completely straight forward."
Define a day"
How can you be sure?
I know this sounds like a stupid question, but in reality, how so?
And don't forget, the Bible is just written by man afterall.
It has screw ups in it- definatelty. Just the resurrection of christ has variations, but they also do cross reference each other more than just "Jesus was resurrected"
"Gunner said:because thats the whole reason why people go to church on sunday, the end of the week."SmugDarkLoser said:"Gunner said:24 hours.. The term ment in the bible "rested on the 7th day" meaning the end of the week.""SmugDarkLoser said:"Gunner said:Thats my point, creation through change is alot more logical than creation through god just magically creating it in 7 days. Even though we have so much proof that it took billions of years for the universe to become what it is today.""The main difference is that in the bible, things were just "created". In Science, things evolve and grow, not just poofed into existence like magic.""god said let there be..."
it technically never says created. Of course I'd have to go to the original text for how specific this is.
Anyway, I don't think it matters. Evolution is creation. Creation through change. If you make dough and then use that for pie are you not making pie? Is it neccessary to say it grew into a pie?
It doesn't exactly specify.
But anyway, my point is that, not even depending on your religious preference, the fact that this is how it was written, this order, considering the time period it was written vs. the actual time these things were discovered it pretty amazing. And it's not one of those stetched out things people say- it's completely straight forward."
Define a day"
How can you be sure?
I know this sounds like a stupid question, but in reality, how so?"
"SmugDarkLoser said:However, as 2 Peter 3:8 brings out "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." So the seven days of creation aren't literally 7 24 hour days, but a time encompassing millions, possibly billions of years of time."Gunner said:24 hours.. The term ment in the bible "rested on the 7th day" meaning the end of the week.""SmugDarkLoser said:"Gunner said:Thats my point, creation through change is alot more logical than creation through god just magically creating it in 7 days. Even though we have so much proof that it took billions of years for the universe to become what it is today.""The main difference is that in the bible, things were just "created". In Science, things evolve and grow, not just poofed into existence like magic.""god said let there be..."
it technically never says created. Of course I'd have to go to the original text for how specific this is.
Anyway, I don't think it matters. Evolution is creation. Creation through change. If you make dough and then use that for pie are you not making pie? Is it neccessary to say it grew into a pie?
It doesn't exactly specify.
But anyway, my point is that, not even depending on your religious preference, the fact that this is how it was written, this order, considering the time period it was written vs. the actual time these things were discovered it pretty amazing. And it's not one of those stetched out things people say- it's completely straight forward."
Define a day"
So THAT's where the name Genesis comes from in Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII!
*ahem* That's some pretty amazing stuff right there.
"Gunner said:Can you possibly get that quote, that's pretty interesting."SmugDarkLoser said:However, as 2 Peter 3:8 brings out "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." So the seven days of creation aren't literally 7 24 hour days, but a time encompassing millions, possibly billions of years of time."Gunner said:24 hours.. The term ment in the bible "rested on the 7th day" meaning the end of the week.""SmugDarkLoser said:"Gunner said:Thats my point, creation through change is alot more logical than creation through god just magically creating it in 7 days. Even though we have so much proof that it took billions of years for the universe to become what it is today.""The main difference is that in the bible, things were just "created". In Science, things evolve and grow, not just poofed into existence like magic.""god said let there be..."
it technically never says created. Of course I'd have to go to the original text for how specific this is.
Anyway, I don't think it matters. Evolution is creation. Creation through change. If you make dough and then use that for pie are you not making pie? Is it neccessary to say it grew into a pie?
It doesn't exactly specify.
But anyway, my point is that, not even depending on your religious preference, the fact that this is how it was written, this order, considering the time period it was written vs. the actual time these things were discovered it pretty amazing. And it's not one of those stetched out things people say- it's completely straight forward."
Define a day"
"
But that's also what I was getting at. You know, Einstein proposed that time is only relevant to an individual. Most scientists do back this up
To be honest, with these higher level sciences (quantum physics, mind not neccessarily conscious, time relativity, etc.) they sort of seem to have some biblical backing. Of course I wont rush into saying they do, but i've noticed some parrellels
"Gunner said:Then every catholic church in the world is wrong and instead of once a week you will have to go once every thousand years."SmugDarkLoser said:However, as 2 Peter 3:8 brings out "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." So the seven days of creation aren't literally 7 24 hour days, but a time encompassing millions, possibly billions of years of time."Gunner said:24 hours.. The term ment in the bible "rested on the 7th day" meaning the end of the week.""SmugDarkLoser said:"Gunner said:Thats my point, creation through change is alot more logical than creation through god just magically creating it in 7 days. Even though we have so much proof that it took billions of years for the universe to become what it is today.""The main difference is that in the bible, things were just "created". In Science, things evolve and grow, not just poofed into existence like magic.""god said let there be..."
it technically never says created. Of course I'd have to go to the original text for how specific this is.
Anyway, I don't think it matters. Evolution is creation. Creation through change. If you make dough and then use that for pie are you not making pie? Is it neccessary to say it grew into a pie?
It doesn't exactly specify.
But anyway, my point is that, not even depending on your religious preference, the fact that this is how it was written, this order, considering the time period it was written vs. the actual time these things were discovered it pretty amazing. And it's not one of those stetched out things people say- it's completely straight forward."
Define a day"
"
that also contradicts the belief that the earth is less than 10000 years old commonly accepted by a majority of church-goers.
"Mistyshadow said:Well, there's no where is the Bible that says you have to go to church every Sunday, and obviously a day for humans is 24 hours, but for God it can a very long period of time. That's what I was trying to say."Gunner said:Then every catholic church in the world is wrong and instead of once a week you will have to go once every thousand years.""SmugDarkLoser said:However, as 2 Peter 3:8 brings out "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." So the seven days of creation aren't literally 7 24 hour days, but a time encompassing millions, possibly billions of years of time."Gunner said:24 hours.. The term ment in the bible "rested on the 7th day" meaning the end of the week.""SmugDarkLoser said:"Gunner said:Thats my point, creation through change is alot more logical than creation through god just magically creating it in 7 days. Even though we have so much proof that it took billions of years for the universe to become what it is today.""The main difference is that in the bible, things were just "created". In Science, things evolve and grow, not just poofed into existence like magic.""god said let there be..."
it technically never says created. Of course I'd have to go to the original text for how specific this is.
Anyway, I don't think it matters. Evolution is creation. Creation through change. If you make dough and then use that for pie are you not making pie? Is it neccessary to say it grew into a pie?
It doesn't exactly specify.
But anyway, my point is that, not even depending on your religious preference, the fact that this is how it was written, this order, considering the time period it was written vs. the actual time these things were discovered it pretty amazing. And it's not one of those stetched out things people say- it's completely straight forward."
Define a day"
"
"Mistyshadow said:"Gunner said:Then every catholic church in the world is wrong and instead of once a week you will have to go once every thousand years.""SmugDarkLoser said:However, as 2 Peter 3:8 brings out "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." So the seven days of creation aren't literally 7 24 hour days, but a time encompassing millions, possibly billions of years of time."Gunner said:24 hours.. The term ment in the bible "rested on the 7th day" meaning the end of the week.""SmugDarkLoser said:"Gunner said:Thats my point, creation through change is alot more logical than creation through god just magically creating it in 7 days. Even though we have so much proof that it took billions of years for the universe to become what it is today.""The main difference is that in the bible, things were just "created". In Science, things evolve and grow, not just poofed into existence like magic.""god said let there be..."
it technically never says created. Of course I'd have to go to the original text for how specific this is.
Anyway, I don't think it matters. Evolution is creation. Creation through change. If you make dough and then use that for pie are you not making pie? Is it neccessary to say it grew into a pie?
It doesn't exactly specify.
But anyway, my point is that, not even depending on your religious preference, the fact that this is how it was written, this order, considering the time period it was written vs. the actual time these things were discovered it pretty amazing. And it's not one of those stetched out things people say- it's completely straight forward."
Define a day"
"
Talk about taking it out of context. We're not saying that anything church related should be multiplied by 1000, at all.
I think you should just reread everything again.
And you know, it really doesn't specify going to church, only keeping the Sabbath holy, or so I believe.
I read everything just fine. It just seems like the catholic church is coming up with random shit to make their crazy ideas seem more realistic to the more intellegent population of today "BUH GAWD IS LEIK, ONE DAY = 1000 YEARS FOR HIM" That is not what they ment in the bible and everyone knows it.
"Mistyshadow said:Err... the majority of church goers don't think that. That number is more so pulled up from athiest people who in reality wouldn't give two craps about evolution if it weren't for the fact that they use it to try to prove god wrong."Gunner said:Then every catholic church in the world is wrong and instead of once a week you will have to go once every thousand years."SmugDarkLoser said:However, as 2 Peter 3:8 brings out "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." So the seven days of creation aren't literally 7 24 hour days, but a time encompassing millions, possibly billions of years of time."Gunner said:24 hours.. The term ment in the bible "rested on the 7th day" meaning the end of the week.""SmugDarkLoser said:"Gunner said:Thats my point, creation through change is alot more logical than creation through god just magically creating it in 7 days. Even though we have so much proof that it took billions of years for the universe to become what it is today.""The main difference is that in the bible, things were just "created". In Science, things evolve and grow, not just poofed into existence like magic.""god said let there be..."
it technically never says created. Of course I'd have to go to the original text for how specific this is.
Anyway, I don't think it matters. Evolution is creation. Creation through change. If you make dough and then use that for pie are you not making pie? Is it neccessary to say it grew into a pie?
It doesn't exactly specify.
But anyway, my point is that, not even depending on your religious preference, the fact that this is how it was written, this order, considering the time period it was written vs. the actual time these things were discovered it pretty amazing. And it's not one of those stetched out things people say- it's completely straight forward."
Define a day"
"
that also contradicts the belief that the earth is less than 10000 years old commonly accepted by a majority of church-goers."
I'm not sure about other churches, but the Catholic church doesn't even have a stance on this or evolution/creation. Lots of people assume they do, but they don't.
"I am just going to say that science has never had a 'proof' that the world is billions of years old. The number of years gets bigger every couple years because new discoveries are constantly being made that are destroying their theories, and when they find something where a piece doesn't fit they say "oh, it must have taken longer! add on another billion years to our theory!".Somewhat true. The big band theory was originally stated to be starting form a mass that was completely gigantic, it got smaller and smaller until it's suppose to have been incredibly tiny, if anything at all. Could almost be the reverse in a way. I just don't think it's as radical as you're making it out to be (but to make a point I suppose)Also it is my theory that the perception of time has been getting faster since the beginning. I think one day back at the beginning of creation would have been billions of years in our perception. Even in our lives the perception of time is getting faster as the days go by.I am also very out of it right now, but it's neat to think about =P"
Not so sure about the last part though, lol. But I guess it is possible. Time isn't constant, apparently.
Gunner said:
"I read everything just fine. It just seems like the catholic church is coming up with random shit to make their crazy ideas seem more realistic to the more intellegent population of today "BUH GAWD IS LEIK, ONE DAY = 1000 YEARS FOR HIM" That is not what they ment in the bible and everyone knows it."
What exactly are you talking about again? Why are you thinking that the catholic church says this? I've said this once, they don't even have a stance on these matters.
This discussion is strictly off of my interpretation of what I just read.
My beliefs define the fact that I'm a christian. the fact that I'm a christian doesn't define my beliefs.
"Gunner said:To say otherwise would contradict anything the bible has told you. Oh wait, i forgot, lets make up something that alters the preception of time to make it true!"Mistyshadow said:Err... the majority of church goers don't think that. That number is more so pulled up from athiest people who in reality wouldn't give two craps about evolution if it weren't for the fact that they use it to try to prove god wrong."Gunner said:Then every catholic church in the world is wrong and instead of once a week you will have to go once every thousand years."SmugDarkLoser said:However, as 2 Peter 3:8 brings out "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." So the seven days of creation aren't literally 7 24 hour days, but a time encompassing millions, possibly billions of years of time."Gunner said:24 hours.. The term ment in the bible "rested on the 7th day" meaning the end of the week.""SmugDarkLoser said:"Gunner said:Thats my point, creation through change is alot more logical than creation through god just magically creating it in 7 days. Even though we have so much proof that it took billions of years for the universe to become what it is today.""The main difference is that in the bible, things were just "created". In Science, things evolve and grow, not just poofed into existence like magic.""god said let there be..."
it technically never says created. Of course I'd have to go to the original text for how specific this is.
Anyway, I don't think it matters. Evolution is creation. Creation through change. If you make dough and then use that for pie are you not making pie? Is it neccessary to say it grew into a pie?
It doesn't exactly specify.
But anyway, my point is that, not even depending on your religious preference, the fact that this is how it was written, this order, considering the time period it was written vs. the actual time these things were discovered it pretty amazing. And it's not one of those stetched out things people say- it's completely straight forward."
Define a day"
"
that also contradicts the belief that the earth is less than 10000 years old commonly accepted by a majority of church-goers."
I'm not sure about other churches, but the Catholic church doesn't even have a stance on this or evolution/creation. Lots of people assume they do, but they don't. "
"Gunner said:Im not arguing against your beliefs, im arguing against the fact that science = religion."I read everything just fine. It just seems like the catholic church is coming up with random shit to make their crazy ideas seem more realistic to the more intellegent population of today "BUH GAWD IS LEIK, ONE DAY = 1000 YEARS FOR HIM" That is not what they ment in the bible and everyone knows it."
What exactly are you talking about again? Why are you thinking that the catholic church says this? I've said this once, they don't even have a stance on these matters.
This discussion is strictly off of my interpretation of what I just read.
My beliefs define the fact that I'm a christian. the fact that I'm a christian doesn't define my beliefs."
"SmugDarkLoser said:But you don't think it's plausible?"Gunner said:Im not arguing against your beliefs, im arguing against the fact that science = religion.""I read everything just fine. It just seems like the catholic church is coming up with random shit to make their crazy ideas seem more realistic to the more intellegent population of today "BUH GAWD IS LEIK, ONE DAY = 1000 YEARS FOR HIM" That is not what they ment in the bible and everyone knows it."
What exactly are you talking about again? Why are you thinking that the catholic church says this? I've said this once, they don't even have a stance on these matters.
This discussion is strictly off of my interpretation of what I just read.
My beliefs define the fact that I'm a christian. the fact that I'm a christian doesn't define my beliefs."
To be honest, I'm not sure if you noticed it, but you probably accept this for fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory
Essentially, the theory states "mass and the universe was created by an unknown force". Seriously. It's AWFUL.
I know my sciences pretty damn well, out of everything I've ever studied (and I've done theoretical sciences) by far, the big bang theory is the most blunt "it's something which uhh... yea... here's a 2 hour documentary!"
Scientists predict that the universe is infinite but is constantly getting larger (pss... that's impossible... regardless of any logic)
"SmugDarkLoser said:"Gunner said:To say otherwise would contradict anything the bible has told you. Oh wait, i forgot, lets make up something that alters the preception of time to make it true!""Mistyshadow said:Err... the majority of church goers don't think that. That number is more so pulled up from athiest people who in reality wouldn't give two craps about evolution if it weren't for the fact that they use it to try to prove god wrong."Gunner said:Then every catholic church in the world is wrong and instead of once a week you will have to go once every thousand years."SmugDarkLoser said:However, as 2 Peter 3:8 brings out "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." So the seven days of creation aren't literally 7 24 hour days, but a time encompassing millions, possibly billions of years of time."Gunner said:24 hours.. The term ment in the bible "rested on the 7th day" meaning the end of the week.""SmugDarkLoser said:"Gunner said:Thats my point, creation through change is alot more logical than creation through god just magically creating it in 7 days. Even though we have so much proof that it took billions of years for the universe to become what it is today.""The main difference is that in the bible, things were just "created". In Science, things evolve and grow, not just poofed into existence like magic.""god said let there be..."
it technically never says created. Of course I'd have to go to the original text for how specific this is.
Anyway, I don't think it matters. Evolution is creation. Creation through change. If you make dough and then use that for pie are you not making pie? Is it neccessary to say it grew into a pie?
It doesn't exactly specify.
But anyway, my point is that, not even depending on your religious preference, the fact that this is how it was written, this order, considering the time period it was written vs. the actual time these things were discovered it pretty amazing. And it's not one of those stetched out things people say- it's completely straight forward."
Define a day"
"
that also contradicts the belief that the earth is less than 10000 years old commonly accepted by a majority of church-goers."
I'm not sure about other churches, but the Catholic church doesn't even have a stance on this or evolution/creation. Lots of people assume they do, but they don't. "
Do you know anything about science? Have you attended/are attending a college? Have you even graduated high school?
Time isn't exactly a steady thing.
But you didn't know that time could possibly have a wikipedia page over 2 sentences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
I thought I was talking to someone who would at least understand basic advanced concepts. Stereotypically it'd be the reverse way, a science guy who knows this stuff and a blind religion guy, but in this case, not trying to offend you, but rather for exaggeration of point, it is a blind emo teen who's favorite band is slipknot vs. a person with a science and philosophy phd
JUST A NEWS UPDATE FOR EVERYONE HERE IN CASE DISCUSSION TURNS THIS WAY:
'Devils' Trails' Are World's Oldest Human Footprints
It's official: the oldest human footprints ever found are 345,000 years old, give or take 6000. Known as the "devils' trails", they have been preserved in volcanic ash atop the Roccamonfina volcano in Italy.
Looks like were much older then we ever thought, just proof that we will NEVER have definite proof of anything.
As I stated before, there were two creation stories that contradicted each other. The first one had animals created before man and was written after the second which had man created before animals. Wouldn't this nullify your statement about the order that things were created?
"As I stated before, there were two creation stories that contradicted each other. The first one had animals created before man and was written after the second which had man created before animals. Wouldn't this nullify your statement about the order that things were created?"
In theory, yes.
However, Adam and Eve is almost a metaphorical story as it's basically about these 2 themes- temptation and free will.
It means man and mother (i think mother, not completely sure there).
Literally, I think the story is BS. Again, it is written by man.
However, it has NO effects on Genesis 1:1. It still stands that the order was put together in such in awkward time. A time when they couldn't have possibly known. Why would they have mentioned the earlier stuff and then could have possibly got the whole order after that correct? By chance? Now I don't think any rational person could say that there's a great chance of that happening.
To someone who knows nothing about science, wouldn't you think that the oceans were created by rain that fell upon the land meaning land came before oceans?
"I'm not typically one to quote a particular section of the Bible or things of that nature. In fact, although I go to church I wouldn't consider myself so uptight about it- I view it as what I believe. I do not believe what I do because I'm a christian, but I am a christian because of what I believe.
But anyway, I've started to read the Bible, to see what it is really all about. I know a good amount of passages from it, but I've never really just sat down and read it myself. So anyway, I started with page 1.
When I started reading I realized something and it is VERY interesting.
I'd rather you read it and post a reply so you won't be seeing things that aren't there because I said there were. Just read through it:
http://kingjbible.com/genesis/1.htm
Here's a summary of the order things were made in:
- heaven and earth (it is worth noting here though that there is a different meaning of this earth and the latter earth- one seems like a specific mass, this one is a more general term)
- earth was void and darkness
- light was created
- water
- land
- vegetation
- seasons
- sea creatures
- land creatures
- man
Here's science's order
- mass
- big bang
- earth
- water
- land
- bacteria
- plants
- sea creatures
- land creatures
- man
"
You appear to be wrong. Water existed long, long before the earth did, and "land" existed long before the earth did. It's likely (almost certain) that life appeared and evolved on other planets before the Earth was even formed. Also, on the planet Earth, there was initially little or no water, and it was a molten hellscape full of crater impacts (and in fact, a mars - sized planet is believed to have directly collided with the Earth, forming Luna). And why the heck did you put anything before "big bang"? You clearly have a poor grasp of these concepts.
You can't just grossly simplify and outright get things wrong for the sole purpose of making it sound like an ancient book knew more than it did, as though that somehow validates it. Any parallels drawn are clearly coincidental - the Qur'an actually describes a slightly more realistic creation than the Bible does. How can the Earth exist before light? The genesis creation story is a myth at best, and the people writing it, if they thought it was actual history, were flat our wrong.
Mistyshadow said:
"Yes, and it's quite amazing that the person who wrote Genesis, Moses, knew absolutely nothing about science's order, but was still able to write an account that has many similarities. And yet people still don't believe the Bible was inspired by God or that even God exists."
Moses did not write Genesis, and whoever did it had no idea what he was talking about. It is a creation myth, so stop treating it like it's fact.
This is in no way proof of God's existence or the divine inspiration of the Bible. If you find passages in the Bible that give energy mass equivelancies, I will convert to Christianity instantly. If you find a passage that explains relativity, I will convert to Christianity immediately. If you have passages explaining quantum fuziness, or sub-atomic particles, I will become a Christian.
But you don't. Every time the Bible makes a scientific statement, it is wrong. Flat our wrong. There are no ifs or buts about it, when you use Bible science you are spouting bullshit. The bible has zero scientific credibility.
SmugDarkLoser said:
"Gunner said:"The main difference is that in the bible, things were just "created". In Science, things evolve and grow, not just poofed into existence like magic.""god said let there be..."
it technically never says created. Of course I'd have to go to the original text for how specific this is.
Anyway, I don't think it matters. Evolution is creation. Creation through change. If you make dough and then use that for pie are you not making pie? Is it neccessary to say it grew into a pie?
It doesn't exactly specify.
But anyway, my point is that, not even depending on your religious preference, the fact that this is how it was written, this order, considering the time period it was written vs. the actual time these things were discovered it pretty amazing. And it's not one of those stetched out things people say- it's completely straight forward."
It's not impressive, because it's wrong.
Also, evolution is not "creation", it is the change in genetic material over time in a given population.
Mistyshadow said:
"Gunner said:So the earth was created in 7000 years? Oh of course, you'll say "it's just metaphorical"! Well why is it that it's "just metaphorical" and "not litteral" any time it says something verifiably false and wrong, but every other time it's litteral?"SmugDarkLoser said:However, as 2 Peter 3:8 brings out "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." So the seven days of creation aren't literally 7 24 hour days, but a time encompassing millions, possibly billions of years of time."Gunner said:24 hours.. The term ment in the bible "rested on the 7th day" meaning the end of the week.""SmugDarkLoser said:"Gunner said:Thats my point, creation through change is alot more logical than creation through god just magically creating it in 7 days. Even though we have so much proof that it took billions of years for the universe to become what it is today.""The main difference is that in the bible, things were just "created". In Science, things evolve and grow, not just poofed into existence like magic.""god said let there be..."
it technically never says created. Of course I'd have to go to the original text for how specific this is.
Anyway, I don't think it matters. Evolution is creation. Creation through change. If you make dough and then use that for pie are you not making pie? Is it neccessary to say it grew into a pie?
It doesn't exactly specify.
But anyway, my point is that, not even depending on your religious preference, the fact that this is how it was written, this order, considering the time period it was written vs. the actual time these things were discovered it pretty amazing. And it's not one of those stetched out things people say- it's completely straight forward."
Define a day"
"
"Dr_Feelgood38 said:Yeah, it's all metaphorical when it's wrong but it's "so brilliant and amazing" when it sort of vaguely alludes to something that is a simplified version of science (and is still mostly wrong)."As I stated before, there were two creation stories that contradicted each other. The first one had animals created before man and was written after the second which had man created before animals. Wouldn't this nullify your statement about the order that things were created?"
In theory, yes.
However, Adam and Eve is almost a metaphorical story as it's basically about these 2 themes- temptation and free will.
It means man and mother (i think mother, not completely sure there).
Literally, I think the story is BS. Again, it is written by man.
However, it has NO effects on Genesis 1:1. It still stands that the order was put together in such in awkward time. A time when they couldn't have possibly known. Why would they have mentioned the earlier stuff and then could have possibly got the whole order after that correct? By chance? Now I don't think any rational person could say that there's a great chance of that happening.
To someone who knows nothing about science, wouldn't you think that the oceans were created by rain that fell upon the land meaning land came before oceans? "
"SmugDarkLoser said:To this I must say, are you middle school educated?
You appear to be wrong. Water existed long, long before the earth did, and "land" existed long before the earth did. It's likely (almost certain) that life appeared and evolved on other planets before the Earth was even formed. Also, on the planet Earth, there was initially little or no water, and it was a molten hellscape full of crater impacts (and in fact, a mars - sized planet is believed to have directly collided with the Earth, forming Luna). And why the heck did you put anything before "big bang"? You clearly have a poor grasp of these concepts.
You can't just grossly simplify and outright get things wrong for the sole purpose of making it sound like an ancient book knew more than it did, as though that somehow validates it. Any parallels drawn are clearly coincidental - the Qur'an actually describes a slightly more realistic creation than the Bible does. How can the Earth exist before light? The genesis creation story is a myth at best, and the people writing it, if they thought it was actual history, were flat our wrong.
Mistyshadow said:
Moses did not write Genesis, and whoever did it had no idea what he was talking about. It is a creation myth, so stop treating it like it's fact.
This is in no way proof of God's existence or the divine inspiration of the Bible. If you find passages in the Bible that give energy mass equivelancies, I will convert to Christianity instantly. If you find a passage that explains relativity, I will convert to Christianity immediately. If you have passages explaining quantum fuziness, or sub-atomic particles, I will become a Christian.
But you don't. Every time the Bible makes a scientific statement, it is wrong. Flat our wrong. There are no ifs or buts about it, when you use Bible science you are spouting bullshit. The bible has zero scientific credibility.
SmugDarkLoser said:
It's not impressive, because it's wrong.
Also, evolution is not "creation", it is the change in genetic material over time in a given population.
Mistyshadow said: So the earth was created in 7000 years? Oh of course, you'll say "it's just metaphorical"! Well why is it that it's "just metaphorical" and "not litteral" any time it says something verifiably false and wrong, but every other time it's litteral?
"
Or better yet, have you read either a science book or a bible?
Better yet, do you have any logic? If we're talking about the formation of the earth and they mention water they're not talking about it existing period. I also have doubts life exists anywhere else. If not, considering the universe is infinite and scientists agree that you can travel infinitely fast now, wouldn't they have visited us by now (same concept as time travel)
Also,
Im pretty sure "one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day" =/= 7000 years/day
Spot on, adam.
"Dr_Feelgood38 said:This is where the time period for Genesis 1:1 should be taken into account. The Jews were under Babylonian rule during the time that the first story of creation was written. The Babylonians probably had some sort of influence on the Jews just like the Persians would later on (Satan isn't real, he is simply an idea taken from the god Ahriman in Zoroastrianism to create a form of evil to separate body and spirit). The Babylonians, as far as I know, were still under the same beliefs that they had formed in the Enuma Elish. The thing is that the Enuma Elish (which written somewhere around 2000 BC) has the sequence of creations in basically the exact same order as Genesis."As I stated before, there were two creation stories that contradicted each other. The first one had animals created before man and was written after the second which had man created before animals. Wouldn't this nullify your statement about the order that things were created?"
In theory, yes.
However, Adam and Eve is almost a metaphorical story as it's basically about these 2 themes- temptation and free will.
It means man and mother (i think mother, not completely sure there).
Literally, I think the story is BS. Again, it is written by man.
However, it has NO effects on Genesis 1:1. It still stands that the order was put together in such in awkward time. A time when they couldn't have possibly known. Why would they have mentioned the earlier stuff and then could have possibly got the whole order after that correct? By chance? Now I don't think any rational person could say that there's a great chance of that happening."
"SmugDarkLoser said:how is it vague in any way? http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Genesis+1-3"Dr_Feelgood38 said:Yeah, it's all metaphorical when it's wrong but it's "so brilliant and amazing" when it sort of vaguely alludes to something that is a simplified version of science (and is still mostly wrong).""As I stated before, there were two creation stories that contradicted each other. The first one had animals created before man and was written after the second which had man created before animals. Wouldn't this nullify your statement about the order that things were created?"
In theory, yes.
However, Adam and Eve is almost a metaphorical story as it's basically about these 2 themes- temptation and free will.
It means man and mother (i think mother, not completely sure there).
Literally, I think the story is BS. Again, it is written by man.
However, it has NO effects on Genesis 1:1. It still stands that the order was put together in such in awkward time. A time when they couldn't have possibly known. Why would they have mentioned the earlier stuff and then could have possibly got the whole order after that correct? By chance? Now I don't think any rational person could say that there's a great chance of that happening.
To someone who knows nothing about science, wouldn't you think that the oceans were created by rain that fell upon the land meaning land came before oceans? "
There's defininte steps. If I were ot have summarized it in any other way I'd be straight up wrong.
And I think we can agree that my science summary is a basic summary
I swear, all of you athiestic people who try to argue this have no understanding of science at all. Well, some of you. I did have a good conversation for a bit on the first page.
"SmugDarkLoser said:"Dr_Feelgood38 said:This is where the time period for Genesis 1:1 should be taken into account. The Jews were under Babylonian rule during the time that the first story of creation was written. The Babylonians probably had some sort of influence on the Jews just like the Persians would later on (Satan isn't real, he is simply an idea taken from the god Ahriman in Zoroastrianism to create a form of evil to separate body and spirit). The Babylonians, as far as I know, were still under the same beliefs that they had formed in the Enuma Elish. The thing is that the Enuma Elish (which written somewhere around 2000 BC) has the sequence of creations in basically the exact same order as Genesis.""As I stated before, there were two creation stories that contradicted each other. The first one had animals created before man and was written after the second which had man created before animals. Wouldn't this nullify your statement about the order that things were created?"
In theory, yes.
However, Adam and Eve is almost a metaphorical story as it's basically about these 2 themes- temptation and free will.
It means man and mother (i think mother, not completely sure there).
Literally, I think the story is BS. Again, it is written by man.
However, it has NO effects on Genesis 1:1. It still stands that the order was put together in such in awkward time. A time when they couldn't have possibly known. Why would they have mentioned the earlier stuff and then could have possibly got the whole order after that correct? By chance? Now I don't think any rational person could say that there's a great chance of that happening."
I disagree. It really isn't the same. I don't see many connections.
Actually, what are you talking about? this is the version you're talking about?
When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
Naught but primordial Apsu, their begetter,
(And) Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
Their waters commingling as a single body;
No reed hut had been matted, no marsh land had appeared,
When no gods whatever had been brought into being,
Uncalled by name, their destinies undetermined-
Then it was that the gods were formed within them.
Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called.
For aeons they grew in age and stature.
Anshar and Kishar were formed, surpassing the others.
They prolonged the days, added on the years.
Anu was their son, of his fathers the rival;
Yea, Anshar's first born, Anu was his equal.
Anu begot in his image Nudimmud.
This Nudimmud was of his fathers the master;
Of broad wisdom, understanding, mighty in strength,
Mightier by far than his grandfather, Anshar.
He had no rival among the gods, his brothers.
The divine brothers banded together,
They disturbed Tiamat as they surged back and forth,
Yea, they troubled the mood of Tiamat
By their hilarity in the Abode of Heaven.
Apsu could not lessen their clamour
And Tiamat was speechless at their ways.
Their doings were loathsome unto (. . .).
Unsavory were their ways; they were overbearing.
Then Apsu, the begetter of the great gods,
Cried out, addressing Mummu, his vizier:
"O Mummu. my vizier, who rejoicest my spirit,
Come hither and let us go to Tiamat!"
They went and sat down before Tiamat,
Exchanging counsel about the gods, their first born.
Apsu, opening his mouth,
Said unto resplendent Tiamat:
"Their ways are verily loathsome unto me.
By day I find no relief, nor repose by night.
I will destroy, I will wreck their ways,
That quiet may be restored. Let us have rest!"
As soon as Tiamat heard this,
She was wroth and called out to her husband.
She cried out aggrieved, as she raged all alone,
Injecting woe into her mood:
"What? Should we destroy what we have built?
Their ways are indeed troublesome, but let us attend kindly!"
Ill wishing and ungracious was Mummu's advice:
"Do destroy, my father, the mutinous ways.
Then shalt thou have relief by day and rest by night!"
When Apsu heard this, his face grew radiant
Because of the evil he planned against the gods, his sons.
As for Mummu, by the neck he embraced him
As (that one) sat down on his knees to kiss him.
(Now) whatever they plotted between them
Was repeated unto the gods, their first born.
When the gods heard (this), they were astir,
(Then) lapsed into silence and remained speechless,
Surpassing in wisdom, accomplished, resourceful,
Ea, the all wise, saw through their scheme.
A master design against it he devised and setup,
Made artful his spell against it, surpassing and holy.
He recited it and made it subsist in the deep,
As he poured sleep upon him. Sound asleep he lay.
When Apsu he made prone, drenched with sleep,
Mummu, the adviser, was impotent to move,
He loosened his band, tore off his tiara,
Removed his halo (and) put it on himself.
Having fettered Apsu, he slew him.
Mummu he bound and left behind lock.
Having thus upon Apsu established his dwelling,
He laid hold on Mummu, holding him by the nose rope.
After he vanquished and trodden down his foes,
Ea, his triumph over his enemies secured,
In his sacred chamber in profound sleep he rested.
He named it "Apsu," for shrines he assigned (it).
In that same place his cult hut he founded.
Ea and Damkina, his wife, dwelled (there) in splendor.
In the chamber of fates, the abode of destinies,
A god was engendered, most potent and wisest of gods.
In the heart of Apsu was Marduk created,
In the heart of holy Apsu was Marduk created.
He who begot him was Ea, his father;
She who conceived him was Damkina, his mother.
The breast of goddesses did she suck.
The nurse that nursed him filled him with awesomeness.
Alluring was his figure, sparkling the lift in his eyes.
Lordly was his gait, commanding from of old.
When Ea saw him, the father who begot him,
He exulted and glowed, his heart filled with gladness.
He rendered him perfect and endowed him with a double godhead.
Greatly exalted was he above them, exceeding throughout.
Perfect were his members beyond comprehension,
Unsuited for understanding, difficult to perceive.
Four were his eyes, four were his ears;
When he moved his lips, fire blazed forth.
Large were all hearing organs,
And the eyes, in like number, scanned all things.
He was the loftiest of the gods, surpassing was his stature;
His members were enormous, he was exceedingly tall.
"My little son, my little son!
My son, the Sun! Sun of the heavens!"
Clothed with the halo of the ten gods, he was strong to the utmost,
As their awesome flashes were heaped upon him.
Disturbed was Tiamat, astir night and day.
The gods, in malice, contributed to the storm.
Their insides having plotted evil.
To Tiamat these brothers said:
"When they slew Apsu, thy consort,
Thou didst not aid him but remaindest still.
Although he fashioned the awesome Saw,
Thy insides are diluted and so we can have no rest.
Let Apsu, thy consort, be in thy mind
And Mummu, who has been vanquished! Thou are left alone.
Then joined issue Tiamat and Marduk, wisest of gods,
They swayed in single combat, locked in battle.
The lord spread out his net to enfold her,
The Evil Wind, which followed behind, he let loose in her face.
When Tiamat opened her mouth to consume him,
He drove the Evil Wind that she close not her lips.
As the fierce winds charged her belly,
Her body was distended and her mouth was wide open.
He released the arrow, it tore her belly,
It cut through her insides, splitting the heart.
Having thus subdued her, he extinguished her life.
He cast down her carcass to stand upon it...
The lord trod on the legs of Tiamat,
With his unsparing mace he crushed her skull.
When the arteries of her blood he had severed,
The North Wind bore (it) to places undisclosed.
On seeing this, his fathers were joyful and jubilant,
They brought gifts of homage, they to him.
Then the lord paused to view her dead body,
That he might divide the monster and do artful works.
He split her like a shellfish into two parts:
Half of her he set up and ceiled as sky,
Pulled down the bar and posted guards.
He bade them to allow not her waters to escape.
He crossed the heavens and surveyed (its) regions.
He squared Apsu's quarter, the abode of Nudimmud,
As the lord measured the dimensions of Apsu.
The Great Abode, its likeness, he fixed as Esharra,
The Great Abode, Esharra, which he made as the firmament.
Anu, Enlil, and Ea he made occupy their places.
When Marduk hears the words of the gods,
His heart prompts (him) to fashion artful works.
Opening his mouth he addresses EA
To impart the plan he addresses EA
To impart the plan he had conceived in his heart:
"Blood I will mass and cause boned to be.
I will establish a savage, 'man' shall be his name.
Verily, savage man I will create.
He shall be charged with the service of the gods
That they might be at ease! The ways of the gods I will artfully alter.
Though alike revered, into two (groups) they shall be divided."
Ea answered him, speaking a word to him.
To relate to him a scheme for the relief of the gods:
"Let but one of their brothers be handed over;"
He alone shall perish that mankind may be fashioned.
Let the great gods be here in Assembly,
Let the guilty be handed over that they may endure."
Marduk summoned the great gods to Assembly;
Presiding graciously, he issued instructions.
This utterance the gods pay heed.
The king addresses a word to the Anunnaki:
"If your former statement was true,
Do (now) the truth on oath by me declare!
Who was it that contrived the uprising,
And made Tiamat rebel, and joined battle?
Let him be handed over who contrived the uprising.
His guilt I will make him bear that you may dwell in peace!"
The Igigi, the great gods, replied to him,
To Lugaldimmerankia, counsellor of the gods, their lord:
"It was Kingu who contrived the uprising,
And made Tiamat rebel, and joined battle."
The bound him holding him before Ea.
They imposed on him his guilt and severed his blood (vessels).
Out of his blood they fashioned mankind.
He imposed the service and let free the gods.
Mistyshadow said:"Yes, and it's quite amazing that the person who wrote Genesis, Moses, knew absolutely nothing about science's order, but was still able to write an account that has many similarities. And yet people still don't believe the Bible was inspired by God or that even God exists."
Moses did not write Genesis, and whoever did it had no idea what he was talking about. It is a creation myth, so stop treating it like it's fact.
This is in no way proof of God's existence or the divine inspiration of the Bible. If you find passages in the Bible that give energy mass equivelancies, I will convert to Christianity instantly. If you find a passage that explains relativity, I will convert to Christianity immediately. If you have passages explaining quantum fuziness, or sub-atomic particles, I will become a Christian.
But you don't. Every time the Bible makes a scientific statement, it is wrong. Flat our wrong. There are no ifs or buts about it, when you use Bible science you are spouting bullshit. The bible has zero scientific credibility.
Mistyshadow said:However, as 2 Peter 3:8 brings out "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." So the seven days of creation aren't literally 7 24 hour days, but a time encompassing millions, possibly billions of years of time.So the earth was created in 7000 years? Oh of course, you'll say "it's just metaphorical"! Well why is it that it's "just metaphorical" and "not litteral" any time it says something verifiably false and wrong, but every other time it's litteral?
"
"
In regards to your first point the Bible is not a scientific text book, but it does contain some scientifically sound statements. Some 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging "upon nothing." (Job 26:7). In the eighth century B.C.E, Isaiah clearly referred to "the circle [or, sphere] of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) A spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support - does not that description sound remarkably modern?
Also when the Mosaic Law was written at about 1500 B.C.E it contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste. - Leviticus 13: 1-15; Numbers 19:1-13; Deuteronomy 23: 13, 14.
And even though it is an ancient book and touched on many subjects, the Bible contains no scientific inaccuracies. Go ahead, find one!
In regards to your second point, no the Earth was not created in 7000 years. It's important to note that the book of Genesis was written in Hebrew. In that language, "day" refers to a period of time. It can either a lengthy one or a literal day of 24 hours. Even in Genesis all six “days” are spoken of collectively as one lengthy period—‘the day in which God made earth and heaven.’ (Genesis 2:4; compare 2 Peter 3:8.) The fact is, the Bible reveals that the creative “days,” or ages, encompass thousands of years. Also, the seventh day has not ended (Hebrews 4:4-6) Also if you think about the writer of Genesis (who was Moses, although you'll probably argue about it) didn't think of time conceptually as in millions of years.
To this I must say, are you middle school educated?Oh that's delicious.
Or better yet, have you read either a science book or a bible?
Better yet, do you have any logic? If we're talking about the formation of the earth and they mention water they're not talking about it existing period. I also have doubts life exists anywhere else. If not, considering the universe is infinite and scientists agree that you can travel infinitely fast now, wouldn't they have visited us by now (same concept as time travel)
Also,
Im pretty sure "one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day" =/= 7000 years/day"
Your best defense is insults? If they aren't talking about "Water existing period" then is this just another "metaphor"? Water was not on earth before "land" was, and "mass" was not before "the big bang". You're saying science claims these things, but it absolutely does not. The bible says that vegetation came before "sea creatures" and "land creatures" according to you, and if true, that's completely wrong, because vegetation is both a sea and land creature (starting in the oceans and eventually migrating).
Your whole argument that this could only have been written through divine inspiration is wrong, because almost everything it claims is wrong. Is being wrong a sign of divine inspiration? Your argument is: "the bible says this stuff in genesis that is scientifically accurate, and thus could not have been known at the time, therefore it is the work of god / therefore it is amazing". But this is simply rubbish because premise 2, that it's scientifically accurate, is not true. It's not even close, and the stuff that isn't *totally* wrong is grossly simplified or hazy at best.
"adam_grif said:
Mistyshadow said:"Yes, and it's quite amazing that the person who wrote Genesis, Moses, knew absolutely nothing about science's order, but was still able to write an account that has many similarities. And yet people still don't believe the Bible was inspired by God or that even God exists."
Moses did not write Genesis, and whoever did it had no idea what he was talking about. It is a creation myth, so stop treating it like it's fact.
This is in no way proof of God's existence or the divine inspiration of the Bible. If you find passages in the Bible that give energy mass equivelancies, I will convert to Christianity instantly. If you find a passage that explains relativity, I will convert to Christianity immediately. If you have passages explaining quantum fuziness, or sub-atomic particles, I will become a Christian.
But you don't. Every time the Bible makes a scientific statement, it is wrong. Flat our wrong. There are no ifs or buts about it, when you use Bible science you are spouting bullshit. The bible has zero scientific credibility.
Mistyshadow said:However, as 2 Peter 3:8 brings out "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." So the seven days of creation aren't literally 7 24 hour days, but a time encompassing millions, possibly billions of years of time.So the earth was created in 7000 years? Oh of course, you'll say "it's just metaphorical"! Well why is it that it's "just metaphorical" and "not litteral" any time it says something verifiably false and wrong, but every other time it's litteral?
"
"
In regards to your first point the Bible is not a scientific text book, but it does contain some scientifically sound statements. Some 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging "upon nothing." (Job 26:7). In the eighth century B.C.E, Isaiah clearly referred to "the circle [or, sphere] of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) A spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support - does not that description sound remarkably modern?
Also when the Mosaic Law was written at about 1500 B.C.E it contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste. - Leviticus 13: 1-15; Numbers 19:1-13; Deuteronomy 23: 13, 14.
Written about 1500 B.C.E., the Mosaic Law (found in the first five books of the Bible) contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste.—Leviticus 13:1-5; Numbers 19:1-13; Deuteronomy 23:13, 14.
And even though it is an ancient book and touched on many subjects, the Bible contains no scientific inaccuracies. Go ahead, find one!
In regards to your second point, no the Earth was not created in 7000 years. It's important to note that the book of Genesis was written in Hebrew. In that language, "day" refers to a period of time. It can either a lengthy one or a literal day of 24 hours. Even in Genesis all six “days” are spoken of collectively as one lengthy period—‘the day in which God made earth and heaven.’ (Genesis 2:4; compare 2 Peter 3:8.) The fact is, the Bible reveals that the creative “days,” or ages, encompass thousands of years. Also, the seventh day has not ended (Hebrews 4:4-6) Also if you think about the writer of Genesis (who was Moses, although you'll probably argue about it) didn't think of time conceptually as in millions of years."
That's something I want to touch on first.
The Bible does not contain any provable scientific flaws. Saying that without provable is suicide. Theyll grip on something... I know it.
Well I'd certainly be impressed if they could find one.
That's something I want to touch on first.
The Bible does not contain any provable scientific flaws. Saying that without provable is suicide. Theyll grip on something... I know it. "
I have just turned my dog into a pillar of salt.
Prove that I have not done so.
"SmugDarkLoser said:No, my best defense isn't insults, it's called you are basically an idiot. Think about what you're saying. You're talking about water existing when we're talking about the creation of earth. You're talking aboutTo this I must say, are you middle school educated?Oh that's delicious.
Or better yet, have you read either a science book or a bible?
Better yet, do you have any logic? If we're talking about the formation of the earth and they mention water they're not talking about it existing period. I also have doubts life exists anywhere else. If not, considering the universe is infinite and scientists agree that you can travel infinitely fast now, wouldn't they have visited us by now (same concept as time travel)
Also,
Im pretty sure "one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day" =/= 7000 years/day"
Your best defense is insults? If they aren't talking about "Water existing period" then is this just another "metaphor"? Water was not on earth before "land" was, and "mass" was not before "the big bang". You're saying science claims these things, but it absolutely does not. The bible says that vegetation came before "sea creatures" and "land creatures" according to you, and if true, that's completely wrong, because vegetation is both a sea and land creature (starting in the oceans and eventually migrating).
Your whole argument that this could only have been written through divine inspiration is wrong, because almost everything it claims is wrong. Is being wrong a sign of divine inspiration? Your argument is: "the bible says this stuff in genesis that is scientifically accurate, and thus could not have been known at the time, therefore it is the work of god / therefore it is amazing". But this is simply rubbish because premise 2, that it's scientifically accurate, is not true. It's not even close, and the stuff that isn't *totally* wrong is grossly simplified or hazy at best."
and then
"But you don't. Every time the Bible makes a scientific statement, it is wrong. Flat our wrong. There are no ifs or buts about it, when you use Bible science you are spouting bullshit. The bible has zero scientific credibility."
hmm...yes it does. It says to wash under running water, to bury the dead, water> earth> sea animals> land animals
Is that not credibility? I'm sorry, but you are an idiot.
You know, there's nothing wrong with being dumb, you just shouldn't get involved with things way over your head.
I can't put it any other way. Print out these pages and show it to someone who could be considered intelligent. They'll laugh at you.
I know I seem like a person who's just in, well since I'm a gamer I do use the term, damage control, but in reality, you have to understand- you're not thinking at all right now.
Just a check(should be very easy): Go to youtube, watch a couple of interviews, who's smarter, Marilyn Manson or
I said perception of time, and it was a joke. But insulting my intelligence at least makes you look smart right?
Do you know anything about science? Have you attended/are attending a college? Have you even graduated high school?
Time isn't exactly a steady thing.
But you didn't know that time could possibly have a wikipedia page over 2 sentences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
I thought I was talking to someone who would at least understand basic advanced concepts. Stereotypically it'd be the reverse way, a science guy who knows this stuff and a blind religion guy, but in this case, not trying to offend you, but rather for exaggeration of point, it is a blind emo teen who's favorite band is slipknot vs. a person with a science and philosophy phd"
No, my best defense isn't insults, it's called you are basically an idiot.I really don't think I need to add anything to this.
I'm assuming that was a comment on the current economic situation."James 5:1-5
- Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.
In which case it's patently untrue, learn the boom-bust cycle.
"Mistyshadow said:Ok levio, go back to playing mount and blade and making incoherent threads. Leave this thread to the people who actually know what they are talking about."Yes, and it's quite amazing that the person who wrote Genesis, Moses, knew absolutely nothing about science's order, but was still able to write an account that has many similarities. And yet people still don't believe the Bible was inspired by God or that even God exists."agreed science is finally catching up to religion."James 5:1-5
- Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.
"Levio91 said:Nope it was all gawds fault. He is punishing us for not believing!I'm assuming that was a comment on the current economic situation."James 5:1-5
- Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.
In which case it's patently untrue, learn the boom-bust cycle."
In regards to your first point the Bible is not a scientific text book, but it does contain some scientifically sound statements. Some 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging "upon nothing." (Job 26:7). In the eighth century B.C.E, Isaiah clearly referred to "the circle [or, sphere] of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) A spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support - does not that description sound remarkably modern?
Also when the Mosaic Law was written at about 1500 B.C.E it contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste. - Leviticus 13: 1-15; Numbers 19:1-13; Deuteronomy 23: 13, 14.
Written about 1500 B.C.E., the Mosaic Law (found in the first five books of the Bible) contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste.—Leviticus 13:1-5; Numbers 19:1-13; Deuteronomy 23:13, 14.
And even though it is an ancient book and touched on many subjects, the Bible contains no scientific inaccuracies. Go ahead, find one!
In regards to your second point, no the Earth was not created in 7000 years. It's important to note that the book of Genesis was written in Hebrew. In that language, "day" refers to a period of time. It can either a lengthy one or a literal day of 24 hours. Even in Genesis all six “days” are spoken of collectively as one lengthy period—‘the day in which God made earth and heaven.’ (Genesis 2:4; compare 2 Peter 3:8.) The fact is, the Bible reveals that the creative “days,” or ages, encompass thousands of years. Also, the seventh day has not ended (Hebrews 4:4-6) Also if you think about the writer of Genesis (who was Moses, although you'll probably argue about it) didn't think of time conceptually as in millions of years."
1. Space isn't nothing. It's a tangible thing. Also, how are we to know he is speaking litterally? Besides, the earth is actualling "hanging" on the Sun's gravity, locked in an orbit around it.
2. Issiah also refers to the "four corners of the earth" (Issiah, 11:12). Why should I trust the other contradictory verse? The earth doesn't have corners if it is a sphere! And it doesn't even matter, because the Greek astronomers had determined the shape of the earth in 2550 BC. And you've put [sphere] like that because it wasn't there. The earth is certainly not a circle! It's talking about God who "Sitteth above the circle of the Earth". Does god really sit "above" the earth? Why is his "circle" supposed to be interpreted to literally mean the earth is round, but the "God sits above the earth" (when "above" is an irrelevant statement in three dimensional relative space) doesn't necessarily have to?
3. Making sound laws in regards to quaranteaning the sick and burning bodies doesn't mean shit, because even acnient people knew that diseased bodies spread disease. You'll notice that ancient cultures would catipult diseased animals and dead bodies into enemy fortresses? That's because they knew this. We're talking about knowledge they coudln't have had, and they don't have any.
4. You want scientific inaccuracies? How about these:
- The bible says the Earth was created before light was, and it treats darkness as though it is a tangible object, and not an absence of light.
- Moses makes blood come out of a rock. This is clearly impossible.
- The genealogy of Jesus is tracked back to Adam, who never existed, and it mentions far, far too few generations to be accurate scientifically.
- The genealogy of Jesus is different in Luke than it is in the other gospels.
- Jesus feeds thousands of people with enough food for about 2 people. This is impossible.
Want me to go on? Oh, "how dare you say those miracles are scientific inaccuracies?!" Scientific inaccuracies are things that are impossible .Those things are things that are impossible. They contradict science. Do they get special treatment because you claim god did it, when you have no evidence to support that it even happened? No, you don't.
Here:
4. Moses did not write Genesis.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_pentateuch_wenham.html
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment