Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,166 Year: 5,423/9,624 Month: 448/323 Week: 88/204 Day: 4/26 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Problems with Genesis: A Christian Evolutionist's View
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 137 of 200 (691403)
02-22-2013 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by willietdog
01-07-2008 8:39 PM


Poor reading comorehension
Problems with Genesis:
1.Genesis says God created the Earth in 6 days.
2.How can there be light before there is a source?
(Genesis 1:3 "Let there be Light" and Genesis 1:14-19 (creation of sun moon and stars)
3.we have all most fool proof evidence that the sun is older than the earth but this says earth was created first.
4.We have clear fossil records that prove that life was created in this order: fish, then land animal, then bird not fish + bird then land animal
5. this is getting to long so im not going to even list all the numerous contradictions between the two stories of creation in genesis.
6. intelligent design says that after the flood the animals on the ark being the last animals on earth went through a rapid "super evolution"
5. The contradictions you see are giant signs for the comprehensive reader to notice, stop reading, and think.
That you are finding contradictions between what you read previously and what you come across later tells you you did not correctly understand the first and earlier statements.
It testifies as evidence that you're are not understanding the story correctly.
6. This is why you are confused and read so poorly.
In your mind you are pre-set psychologically to compare the interpretations you have heard with what the Bible and science tells.
You are not independently reading, but trying to superimpose these teaching you have heard over the text and context of the scriptures.
You are really complaining about what these other teachings say, not what the Bible says.
1. The Cosmos was created in six "days" that were very long durations on the order of eras millions of years long.
You comprehension here failed because you did not know the dictionary meaning of the Hebrew word for day, "yowm," does not necessarily apply to a 24 hour duration.
2. This thinking noted above is what confused you about the creation of Light, where you assumed that Genesis was referring to sun light.
If you have researched the Big Bang expansion, you would have discovered that there was NO visible light at first.
The universe was too hot for neutral Atoms to form yet.
Visible light comes from only neutral Atoms. Hence there was a 400 million year State-of-Cosmic Darkness.
That Cosmic Darkness ended just as the stars first formed.
3. Again, you fail Reading Comprehension.
Genesis does NOT say that the sun was "created" on the 4th "day" (era).
It clearly says god made the sun authority over the Solar Clock, the Stars the authority over Sidereal Time, and the Moon was given authority to keep the time of the monthly calendar.
4. The order is correct, that fish, reptiles, amphibians, and the birds which are actually the progeny of dinosaurs appeared before the mammals and cattle which the Hebrew words used actually refer to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by willietdog, posted 01-07-2008 8:39 PM willietdog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by ringo, posted 02-22-2013 12:09 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 139 of 200 (691460)
02-22-2013 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Omnivorous
12-23-2010 7:10 PM


Re: Not a Time-Line
So what about the language of Genesis 1 makes you think the evening-and-morning language does not specify a normal series of days?
1. That we are alerted with the inordinate use of the evening and the morning" expressions draws my attention to the possiblity that something is strange in this case about the normal idea of a "day."
2. Since the Earth day was not created until four of these evening and mornings had already passed, I realize that "a day to the lord can be like a 1000 years," or whatever.
3.I realize that the Bible writers would have had to avoid saying "and that was "the evening of the Hadean Era and the morning of the Archean era," simply because these facts would not be known to the readers until this last century.
4. These opportunities to understand the Bible as literally true "makes me think the evening-and-morning language does not specify a normal series of 24 hour days" as opposed to the other personal and subjective choice to oppose logic, common sense, reason, and scientific facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Omnivorous, posted 12-23-2010 7:10 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-25-2013 12:08 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 140 of 200 (691462)
02-22-2013 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by ringo
02-22-2013 12:09 PM


Re: Poor reading comorehension
Understanding the story correctly does not mean twisting it into knots in an attempt to get rid of the contradictions.
Of course that is true, and merely choosen to understand the Hebrew word as "a long duration" is no more "twisting" than intentionally choosing "24 hour Earth day," which is clearly erroneous, contradictory, and against all Truth and Modern Science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by ringo, posted 02-22-2013 12:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Eli, posted 02-22-2013 8:10 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 142 by ringo, posted 02-23-2013 11:36 AM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 143 of 200 (691670)
02-23-2013 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by ringo
02-23-2013 11:36 AM


Re: Poor reading comprehension
LOl
You guys start the discussion saying your position is : "Genesis 1 is erroneous, contradictory and contary to modern science."
And I enter saying, "The story corresponds exactly with science given the need to couch it in terms that are indirect, but recognizably referring to the same genral unfolding of the Cosmos."
Then you elect yourselves the judge of whether what I say is acceptable to you, condemn it, (LOL), and pretend to have won the discuaaion. (hahaaaa).
Please.
Let the lurking readers be the judge and you guys try to respond with evidence that isn't pickiune and trival.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ringo, posted 02-23-2013 11:36 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Eli, posted 02-23-2013 11:23 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 146 by ringo, posted 02-25-2013 11:40 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 145 of 200 (691698)
02-24-2013 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by ringo
02-23-2013 11:36 AM


truth...
So is the notion of absolute "Truth" erroneous, contradictory and contary to modern science.
There is no such thing as "Absolute Truth."
There is that which is true, and everything else is a lie or an error in thinking about the Ideal of Truth.
Truth is an ideal, like Love or Wisdom is an Ideal.
But Truth exists whether man exists or does not, because the definition of Truth is merely that it corresponds with what is Real.
Truth is the image of Reality, and is congruent to that Reality, one-to-one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ringo, posted 02-23-2013 11:36 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by ringo, posted 02-25-2013 11:50 AM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 149 of 200 (692475)
03-03-2013 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by ringo
02-25-2013 11:50 AM


Re: truth...
kofh2u writes:
There is no such thing as "Absolute Truth."
There is that which is true, and everything else is a lie or an error in thinking about the Ideal of Truth.
Ringo:
There's no such thing as an "Ideal of Truth" either. There's just a pile of things that are true or partially true.
Of course there is am ideal concept of Truth because theree is one Reality to which Truth corrrsponds one-to-one by definition.
The Bible does agree with you, that there are two kinds of people.
Those like you, who deny Truth and say it does not exist.
And ther are people who can image Truth mentally in their mind and recognize it as corresponding to Reality in the form of the Facts of Life.
Today, Empirical Scientists are on that side of the fence, now.
John 14:17
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by ringo, posted 02-25-2013 11:50 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by ringo, posted 03-05-2013 11:25 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 150 of 200 (692476)
03-03-2013 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by ringo
02-25-2013 11:50 AM


Re: truth...
Remember that an image is not the real thing and therefore is not necessarily congruent to reality on a one-to-one basis.
Of course Tuth is not Reality anymore than the son is the father, but for man, we can not tell the difference between the two.
In fact Truth can become a mental model inside our head which we interact with in the faith and belief that one is the other.
Kant explained this idea for us in the early 19th century.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by ringo, posted 02-25-2013 11:50 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by ringo, posted 03-05-2013 11:29 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 151 of 200 (692477)
03-03-2013 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by New Cat's Eye
02-25-2013 12:08 PM


Re: Not a Time-Line
They wouldn't be known to the writers either! And if God magically poofed that knowledge into the writers' minds, then he could have done it to the readers too. As you have it, God has tricked all those ancient Jews and is a prankster.
Probably not, the writers were just taking dictation.
But the actual author would have realized he could not have said things that no one could possible relate to directly, and so the literary art of chosing word with a double intendre, a meaning for them but cleverly, a deeper meaning for us today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-25-2013 12:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Eli, posted 03-04-2013 12:01 AM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 154 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2013 10:31 AM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 155 of 200 (692528)
03-04-2013 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by New Cat's Eye
03-04-2013 10:31 AM


..."the Kingdom of God is within"...
kofh2u:
the writers were just taking dictation.
Catholic:
Does God have a mouth with a tongue in it? Or does he shoot magic mind words straight into their brains
The writers of the Bible were consciously setting down ideas and thoughts that came to them from the ancient of anciets who we call the phylogenetic Unconscious mind.
That part of our psyche, (soul), is regenerated by the genetic code and born again in every baby brought forth out of the womb back into the living.
The writers of the Bible were privy to the intercourse between that facility wherein is stored the memories of all the experiences of our species and even before.
This "god within" is the son of the ever unfolding Creator of Reality that mankind has experienced and added to his memories gentically.
He is Truth, tried by the purifying experiences of evolution and millioins of years of existence in that real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2013 10:31 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2013 2:15 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 157 by Coragyps, posted 03-04-2013 4:30 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 169 of 200 (692715)
03-06-2013 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by jaywill
03-06-2013 2:02 PM


... truth... the image of Reality
Does either statement represent your belief:
Big T Truth does not exist ?
Or big T Truth exists but no one can know big T Truth ?
First, one must answer whether he accepts the axiom, that Reality exists, is the same for everyone, whether they recognize that entity or not.
There can only be Truth if a singular ever unfoling Reality exists which sires what is True in its wake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by jaywill, posted 03-06-2013 2:02 PM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by ringo, posted 03-07-2013 11:26 AM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 170 of 200 (692716)
03-06-2013 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by New Cat's Eye
03-04-2013 2:15 PM


Re: ..."the Kingdom of God is within"...
Its apparent that they got a lot of stuff wrong. Why are you assuming that they got everything right?
I don't think they got anything wrong.
I believe that the way they phrased things, and their clever choice of words with a duality in their synonyms, allowed them to express what we would realize on the one hand, was scientifically and academically correct.
While on the other hand, this allowed for the misconceptions of ancient peoples, throughout all the generations previous to our own to assume what they thought was what the Bible writers meant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2013 2:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 174 of 200 (692793)
03-07-2013 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by New Cat's Eye
03-07-2013 2:07 PM


Re: truth...
I don't think they got anything wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2013 2:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2013 2:30 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 175 of 200 (692794)
03-07-2013 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by ringo
03-07-2013 11:26 AM


Re: ... truth... the image of Reality
Again, we have to distinguish between big-r Reality and small-r reality.
Everybody has his own small-r reality. Small-r reality is different in the Sahara desert from what it is in New York City. Small-r reality is different for a blind person and a sighted person.
If big-r Reality exists, we have no way of perceiving it. It isn't "real" in the same sense as small-r reality.
It does not matter, nor does Reality depend in anyway, upon whether you or mankind perceives it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by ringo, posted 03-07-2013 11:26 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by ringo, posted 03-08-2013 11:36 AM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 177 of 200 (692817)
03-07-2013 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by New Cat's Eye
03-07-2013 2:30 PM


Re: truth...
You worship a prankster god.
"I am the Truty, the way, and the life"... everlasting for any species which can apt to Reality.
How is that a prank??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2013 2:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2013 5:31 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 179 of 200 (692825)
03-07-2013 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by New Cat's Eye
03-07-2013 5:31 PM


Re: truth...
That your god has performed some pranks doesn't necessitate that everything they've said is a prank.
What pranks???
You call god a name and then refer to that as a charge against him.
What I read from he things you post is that you respond to things that church peple say about what they think the Bibketells us about this God.
Then you take what theysay, as you did here with what you say, and condemn god.
What is it in the Bible that makes you say these things?
They call the Bible the Word of God, so it is only fair that you take him at that word and tell us what is your complaint against him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2013 5:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-08-2013 12:19 PM kofh2u has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024