Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,176 Year: 5,433/9,624 Month: 458/323 Week: 98/204 Day: 14/26 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Bible say the Earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago?
jaywill
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 12 of 319 (489693)
11-29-2008 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Granny Magda
11-28-2008 5:43 PM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
"Gap Creationism" is not about explaining the age of the Earth, it's about explaining away the fact that science has shown the world to be much, much older than the Bible authors dreamed.
The understanding of a interval of unspecified time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 far predates the invention of Geology as a science.
Ancient Hebrew readers had this view with no particular pressing reason to "accomodate" the Scriptures to geological theories of the 19th century or evolutionary theories that had not yet been proposed.
Critics of your so-called "Gap Theory" should keep this in mind. It is a very old interpretation. Some second century AD rabbis held to it. And it probably was older than that as a tradition.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Granny Magda, posted 11-28-2008 5:43 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Granny Magda, posted 11-30-2008 7:56 AM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 14 of 319 (489741)
11-29-2008 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by DevilsAdvocate
11-29-2008 11:23 AM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
Interesting. But I want to know if you can find any ancient account of creation that says the gods or thier god created the world out of nothing.
ie. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ..." (Gen. 1:1)
"By faith we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not come into being out of things which appear." (Hebrews 11:3)
"By the word of Jehovah the heavens were made, And all thier hosts by the breath of His mouth ...For He spoke, and it was; He commanded, and it stood." (See Psalm 33:6-9)
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-29-2008 11:23 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Rrhain, posted 11-29-2008 7:18 PM jaywill has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 16 of 319 (489778)
11-29-2008 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Rrhain
11-29-2008 7:18 PM


My question:
But I want to know if you can find any ancient account of creation that says the gods or thier god created the world out of nothing.
Greek: In the beginning, there was Chaos, the gaping void of nothingness.
What are you quoting specifically?
It is true that Chaos first meant a gaping void. Are you quoting the poet Hesiod (ca. 900 B.C.)?
Norse: In the beginning, there was Ginnungagap, the void that separated Muspelheim and Niflheim.
Whatever Muspelheim and Ginnungagap were, they existed and were seperate, So this example is not quite as good as the first.
Chinese: In the beginning, all was Tao, the nameless void, the mother of Ten Thousand Things.
This is may be a little closer, I think, to creation of something from nothing. I don't know too much about Taoism.
So there you go. The Bible is hardly unique in claiming that in the beginning, there was nothing. Of course, if there were nothing, how could there be god? But, that's another question
But there is something rather than nothing. So where did it come from if not God ? I look at it that way.
I'll consider your challenge to the Bible's uniqueness in this regard. Thanks.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Rrhain, posted 11-29-2008 7:18 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by earlejones, posted 12-01-2008 8:34 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 50 by Rrhain, posted 12-05-2008 12:37 AM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 49 of 319 (490287)
12-03-2008 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by johnfolton
12-03-2008 3:34 AM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
I think probably Paul wrote Hebrews.
The mentioning of Timothy is also suggestive of Paul's authorship (Hebrews 13:23).
The interesting thing is that whenever Hebrews refers to Old Testament passages it simply says that God said or something generally divine as a source is indicated.
Perhaps the point is that it less important as to which human wrote the prophetic message down. It is more important that Scripture is God's speaking.
Consistent with that attitude no author for the book of Hebrews was supplied.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by johnfolton, posted 12-03-2008 3:34 AM johnfolton has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 70 of 319 (491921)
12-24-2008 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Rrhain
12-24-2008 12:50 AM


Do you object to the beginning of the cosmos being discribed as a Big Bang?
I mean where was the air for sound waves to travel and make a noise. If no sound then where is the Bang ?
If we can allow a little poetic license to the language of a Bang happening before sound could exist we can allow the same license for a Day to exist before the sun appears, I think.
Strictly speaking, we cannot insist that the Hebrew says the sun was created on the fourth day. Rather that light bearers were made. That is a more specific receptacle to hold light:
And God saud, Let there be light-bearers in the expanse of heaven to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.
And let them be light-bearers in the expanse of heaven to give light on the earth; and it was.
And God made the two great light-bearers, the greater light-bearer to rule the day and the lesser light-bearer to rule the night, and the stars.
And God set them in the expanse of heaven to give light on the earth.
I can imagine that the seer had a vision of a diffuse and undefined light and darkness before these fourth light-bearers were seen in the expanse of heaven.
That would communicate that on the fourth day the light was located in more definite sources - light bearers.
On the third day the dry land was made to appear. It came up from under the waters where it was not dry and was hidden. Something similar could have been seen on the fourth day when the seer noticed that the light-bearers became distinct.
Previous to that a general haze of brightness turning into darkness could have been what was shown him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Rrhain, posted 12-24-2008 12:50 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Rrhain, posted 12-24-2008 8:08 PM jaywill has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 75 of 319 (491991)
12-25-2008 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Rrhain
12-24-2008 8:08 PM


Yes. The Big Bang describes the inflation and expansion of the universe, not the creation.
An agnostic scientist, Robert Jastrow, wrote this:
There is a kind of religion in science ... every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause ... This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced wth trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implications - in science this is known as "refusing to speculate" - or trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang, as if the Universe were a firecracker."
This scientist describes the Big Bang not just as expansion and inflation but as "the origin of the world." So apparantly some scientists do regard the Big Bang as the origin, ie. "creation" of the world.
This particular scientist founded NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies. I assume he knows something about cosmology. He says he is an Agnostic concerning theism.
Oh, where to begin with the silliness of that statement....
So when you hear things underwater, you're not really hearing them because there is no air? Is that what you're saying?
Good point. I guess I'd beging by saying the air is in the human ear? If not air then, in the universe to carry the sound of Bang, then liquid doesn't seem to make the language problem go away.
Sound is the fluctuation of a medium. At the time of the Big Bang, the universe was not empty. In fact, all matter was condensed into a tiny space. I dare say if you had audio equipment that could have survived, there would have been quite a lot of sound.
Fascinating.
My point is that the expression Big Bang could be well considered as scientifically imprecise language. Such language of imprecise expressions according to modern standards are also found in Genesis.
But on top of that, "bang" refers to more than just sound. Again, you must deal with context. When a word has multiple meanings, you cannot simply substitute one for another and expect to have a legitimate interpretation. To do so is the logical error of equivocation.
I'll take that point. Bang could mean a soundless Bang I guess.
Instead, since we are dealing with a scenario described by language, you have to use the tools of language to interpret it. The reason "bang" is used is because it is a useful descriptor for what happened: A tremendous explosion in multiple senses. Not merely a throwing out of matter and energy into space but also a huge expansion of space, itself.
I haven't yet been able to get my mind around space expanding into ... ?, that which is not space.
Again the limitation of language has to be accounted for. I don't know why the same realization cannot be had in reading a revelation about the origin of the world in Genesis.
It seems some Bible skeptics use leeway for modern Cosmology but cut no slack to the writer of Genesis 1.
Again - Big Bang? What was Big? What defines Big there? Space is being somehow created ?
Or are you going to tell that space is compressed and expanding but not being created?
Either way, I think I have to make allowances for the limitation of human language.
Light coming into being on Day #1 and light bearers coming in at Day #4 is not implausible to me. It is not less plausible than space compressed or space expanding beyond the boudary of which space does not exist.
If I can do fancy mental feats to fit into my thinking what you discribes as the Big Bang I can also do the same with some difficult concepts in Genesis chapter 1.
Indeed. That's my point. Because we haven't mastered that telepathy thing, we use language to communicate ideas. Therefore, we use words to convey the meanings we want to get across. Since there are plenty of ways to express a long period of time in Hebrew, why use a phrasing that specifically indicates a literal, 24-hour period of time? If you didn't mean it, why would you say it?
And I see God as wanting to get across to the maximum number of people, not an exhaustive discription of how He created everything, but an accessible general and economical explanation.
If He wanted to give all details then maybe there would have been 20 books just to describe the nature of water. The minute details that went into the measurements of the tabernacle, ark, garments and pristly utinsils show that the author of Genesis, Exodus certainly was intelligent enough to master technical details.
me:
Strictly speaking, we cannot insist that the Hebrew says the sun was created on the fourth day. Rather that light bearers were made. That is a more specific receptacle to hold light:
Oh, please. Let us not play dumb.
I am not playing at anything.
"The greater light to rule the day" is not ambiguous. It is a reference to the sun.
Of course it is a reference to the sun. The sun was one of the light-holders. You can see light without being able to locate the origin of it, its holder, its bearer.
The RcV brngs this out in the translation because the light of verse 3 is a different word from light bearers in verses 14-19.
"The lesser light to rule the night" is not vague.
Once again, the Recovery Version brings out in the translation that the word for light bearer Day 4 is not the same for light on Day 1
It is a reference to the moon.
That's right. Have you ever noticed that the moon or sun behind cloud can give the sky a general glow of light? But on a very clear night or day, you can see the "light bearer" in a more specific way. I am simply saying that it could have been shown to the prophet in this way.
It is no less plausible then "space expanding" or "space inflating".
And since it follows those statements with a direct statement of "he made the stars, also," there is no question as to what was going on: The creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
No, "made" does not have to mean that the sun, moon, and stars were created out of nothing on the fourth day. You cannot insist on that sense in the Hebrew.
The word is also used for trimming a beard or trimming finger nails. It is used for preparing a meal.
You do not have to insist that the only meaning there is that, before the fourth day no sun existed. The dry land came up from under the water and was made to appear on the third day.
I think that something similar could have actually been what is being discribed. Other creation accounts in the Bible show God stretching forth the heavens before laying the foundation of the earth. For example:
" ... This declares Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him." (Zech. 12:1)
If here stretching forth the heavens includes not only space but thge atronomical bodies in the heavens, then this passage would mean the stars were stretched forth before the earth's foundation was laid.
me:
I can imagine that the seer had a vision of a diffuse and undefined light and darkness before these fourth light-bearers were seen in the expanse of heaven.
you:
Indeed...but since all the light we have on this planet comes from the sun and other stars (the moon having no light of its own), there's a small problem as to where this "diffuse and undefined light" came from during days one through three since the sun and stars wouldn't be created until day four.
No problem at all. It could come from the sun. But as it was unvieled to the prophet in a series of revelatory visions, he didn't see where it was coming from until the fourth day.
me:
On the third day the dry land was made to appear. It came up from under the waters where it was not dry and was hidden.
thou:
And that's in direct opposition to geology. The dry land came first. The waters came second.
LOL. I'm as stubburn to prove that it is possible as you are to prove that it is bogus.
Okay, assuming that all geologist /astro physicists agree with your statement, it still does not render Genesis factually incorrect.
We have this as verse 1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth became waste and emptiness and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
Regardless of whether the earth was first solid land or ocean over land, there is room in the original language to understand that it BECAME something else. And what is worked with from verse two is the something else which it BECAME.
The word there translated became in some translations is the same which is translated became when, for example, Lot's wife BECAME a pillar of salt when judged by God in chapter 19.
I'll close this post with another reference to the Big Bang. Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies wrote this about the Big Bang. And I have no doubt that after reading it you will seek to discredit the scientific credentials of the man. This is what most Bible skeptics do when I point out this quotation:
In a nutshell this scientist (a self confessed agnostic) believes that it is now scientifically proved that supernatural forces were at work in the origin of the universe:
"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
["A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow," Christianity Today, August 6, 1982, emphasis added.]
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Rrhain, posted 12-24-2008 8:08 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Rrhain, posted 12-26-2008 11:02 PM jaywill has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 78 of 319 (492050)
12-27-2008 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Rrhain
12-26-2008 11:02 PM


That's a hefty reply. I will not be able to deal with it as I'd like this week.
But for starters.
Who cares? Are you seriously trying to run the argument from authority past me? It doesn't matter what any scientist, no matter how prominent, thinks. The only thing that matters is what the data says. The Big Bang is not about the creation of the universe. It is about the expansion of the universe.
Okay. If you don't care what that scientist says, we can also say we don't care what you say. You kick Jastrow to the side. Why can't we kick you off to the side?
If you want to ....
If you want to not care what Jastrow says, then whats good for the goose is good for the gander. We'll just discard your opinion on the matter too.
Why shouldn't I simply ignore your opinion then?
Oh, because you're right of course and he's wrong ?
I'm not through yet.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Rrhain, posted 12-26-2008 11:02 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by lyx2no, posted 12-27-2008 1:15 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 88 by Rrhain, posted 12-29-2008 5:26 AM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 81 of 319 (492053)
12-27-2008 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Rrhain
12-26-2008 11:02 PM


Huh? You're comparing a pithy statement that is a reference for an entire field of study to a couple minutes of oral tradition?
Not really. From my perspective I am comparing human opinion to the oracles of God, a revelation.
me:
I haven't yet been able to get my mind around space expanding into ... ?, that which is not space.
thou:
The fact that you can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true.
Vica Versa with you and the first chapter of Genesis.
I can't wrap my mind around Linear A (and neither can anybody else), but I do know it is an actual language. I understand the frustration. I really do.
And I understand your frustration with saying on Day 1 God said "Let there be light" but light holders or light bearers are said to be made on Day 4.
It is not impossible.
At my undergrad, they made you take fundamental courses in all of the other fields no matter what your major: Math, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering. After the basics, there is what we students called the "gatekeeper." It was the class where you came to realize what your major really should be. If you got through it with ease, then you should consider continuing. If it was hell, then perhaps you should reconsider. For math, it was "Fundamental Concepts" (which dealt with Real Analysis), For physics, it was Electricity and Magnetism. For chemistry, Physical Chemistry. For engineeing, Systems. You bang your head against all the walls and find the one that leaves the smallest or prettiest stain.
That is kind of interesting.
I was a Computer Science major. I think the weed out course was Compiler Design.
Anyway. That is all I can write right now.
I think God's job in Genesis is to communicate the essentials of the origin of the world in a way accessible to the greatest number of people.
J. Pye Smith wrote in his Lectures on the Bearing of Geological Science upon Certain Parts of the SCriptural Narrative - A philological survey of the initial sections of the Bible. (Gen i,1, to ii,3)
1. "That the first sentence is a simple, independent, all-comprehending axiom, to this effect: that matter, elementary or combined, aggregated only or organized, and dependent, sentient, and intellectual beings have not existed from eternity, either in self continuity or succession, but had a beginning; that their beginning took place by the all-powerful will of one Being, the self-existent, independent, and infinite in all perfection; and that the date of that beginning is not made known.
2. "That at a certan epoch, our planet was brought into a state of disorganization, detritus, or ruin, (perhpas we have no perfectly appropriate term) from a former condition."
3. "That it pleased the Almighty, wise and benevolent Supreme, out of that state of ruin to adjust the surface of the earth to its now existing condition, the whole extending through a period of six natural days."
John Harris likewise writes in The PreAdamite Earth
"On the whole then, my firm persuasion is, that the first verse of Genesis was designed, by the Divine Spirit, to announce the absolute origination of the material universe by the Almighty Creator; and that it is so understood in other parts of the Holy Writ: that, passing by ab indefinite interval, the second verse describes the state of our planet immediately prior to the Adamic creation; and that the third verse begins the account of the six days work.
If I am reminded that I am in danger of being biased in favour of these conclusions by the hope of harmonizing Scrioture with Geology, I might venture to suggest, in reply, that the danger is not all on one side. Instances of adherence to traditional interpretations chiefly becase they are traditional and popular, though in the face of all evidence of their faultiness, are by no menas so rare as to render warning unnecessary. The danger of confounding the infallibility of our own interpretations with the infallibility of sacred text, in not peculiar to a party. "
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Rrhain, posted 12-26-2008 11:02 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Rrhain, posted 12-29-2008 5:41 AM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 82 of 319 (492054)
12-27-2008 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by lyx2no
12-27-2008 1:15 PM


Re: He Explained Why
Follow the data, not the man.
Right. And interpreting the Data as Jastrow has every right to offer his interpretation.
Who cares? Some of us care what he has to say ... following the data, interpreting the data, looking to where the evidence leads.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by lyx2no, posted 12-27-2008 1:15 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by lyx2no, posted 12-27-2008 2:14 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 86 by lyx2no, posted 12-27-2008 9:09 PM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 91 of 319 (492191)
12-29-2008 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Rrhain
12-26-2008 11:02 PM


Jastrow is simply pointing out that the universe had a beginning. He wants there to be wonder in that fact, and I am hardly arguing against that. But you are attaching much more emotional and supernatural significance to his use of the phrase, "origin of the world," or at the very least a very different significance to it.
That is right that he said the Universe had a beginning. Present state of Cosmology regards that the universe had a beginning.
As for me attaching "emotional and supernatural significance" to it that is hardly a fair statement. Firstly, I don't know what "emotional" input I placed on it - as if emotion in and of itself is something to be avoided. Anyway, I attached no particular emotional signnificance.
I did point out that Jastrow said that there are what he or anyone would call "supernatural forces" at work is now a scientificaly proven fact in his opinion. I did not attach it the origin of the world. Jastrow attached it.
That how I used the quotation. And I did not get it off a website but from a book - "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Giesler and Turek who in term quoted it from an interview in a Christian Magazine.
I pointed at that he said it. You are welcomed to point out something else that same person said. I read his book years ago "God and The Astronomers".
I hope that you don't suspicion a person simply because he quotes a portion of an intire article or book. There is no twisting or sneaky purpose in me using a portion of an article to make a point.
So Jastrow believed that the universe had a beginning and that there are what should rightly be called supernatural forces at work.
Now that is interesting to me because I have an interest in both Cosmology and in the Bible. And no I did NOT say Jastrow quoted Genesis 1:1 per se. However, Genesis 1:1 also says that the universe had a beginning. And it reveals that the cause was what most of would call a supernatural one.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Rrhain, posted 12-26-2008 11:02 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2009 12:46 AM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 96 of 319 (492437)
12-31-2008 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Percy
12-31-2008 8:47 AM


Re: Re Sunlight
Let me briefly drop into Admin mode. You're not anywhere remotely close to the topic. Please do not contribute to topic drift.
Maybe, you should leave that to the Admins. ICANT, with whom I am not always in agreement, seems to be close to the general topic of the biblical text and the earth's age.
Isn't that close to the topic?
I don't think anything in the number of years of the earth's existence can be deduced from Genesis. Perhaps something of the timeframe of man's existence on the earth can be approximated but not of the age of the planet itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 12-31-2008 8:47 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Admin, posted 12-31-2008 11:15 AM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 106 of 319 (492494)
12-31-2008 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Percy
12-31-2008 2:07 PM


Re: Re Sunlight
One way of maintaining the illusion of Biblical inerrancy is by interpreting Genesis 1 as describing something other than a six day creation 6000 years ago, which obviously did not happen.
Six days of God's work seems clear enough to me Percy.
We read of an interval of unspecified length plus six days for preparation of the world as it is arranged for man.
If this traditional fundamentalist interpretation is wrong then it isn't science you have to convince. We don't we care, since from a scientific standpoint it's all just religious mythology. It's fundamentalists you have to persuade.
Those are nice assertions. And the opinions of science change. You may live to see a day when the science opinion differs and they say, "These things may have well happened in a shorter timespan than was originally assumed in previous times."
I saw a cartoon of a bunch of scientists looking at a complex formula on a blackboard. And one of them is looking sad and saying "The most depressing thing is that everything we believe here today will one day be proved false."
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 12-31-2008 2:07 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2009 2:03 AM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 135 of 319 (492720)
01-02-2009 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Peg
01-02-2009 12:41 AM


This also known as the "Day Age" theory or interpretation ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Peg, posted 01-02-2009 12:41 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Rrhain, posted 01-09-2009 8:02 PM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 136 of 319 (492722)
01-02-2009 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Rrhain
01-01-2009 6:10 PM


There are others. God repents all the time for the mistakes that he makes. In fact, Genesis 2 shows god making blunder after blunder. First he makes a human male but then notes that he made a mistake by making him alone. So he tries to find a companion for the man and creates a bunch of animals but then notes that he made a mistake by making animals rather than another human. Only then does he finally get it right by making a second human.
Yes, there are a few places in the Bible where it says that God repented. However, those instances are of Him repenting because of the terrible decisions that man has made through his free will.
IE. I had a science teacher give me a very complex model design of an Atomic Power Plant in 8th grade. Someone worked hard on it. I took it home and put a fire cracker in it to blow it up for fun. Of course word came back to the teacher what I did.
I think he repented that he gave it to me. And I felt bad.
The bringing of many animals before Adam was to build up within Adam a sense of anticipation. He wanted Adam to appreciate what He was about to do to produce his wife.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2009 6:10 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by lyx2no, posted 01-02-2009 1:45 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 189 by Rrhain, posted 01-09-2009 8:21 PM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 143 of 319 (492838)
01-03-2009 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by lyx2no
01-02-2009 1:45 PM


Re: Hind Sight
Would he have given it to you if he knew what you were going to do with it?
I don't know if this philosophical delimma has ever been addressed to anyone's complete satisfaction. I am not even sure we can blame God for knowing all.
In other words I don't think we should say that because God knows everything therefore He should do nothing and nothing should exist, especially beings with a will. I don't want to say that since God knows all He should have only filled the universe with non-willful rocks and stones rather than choosing creatures.
I know that He didn't just fill creation with non-choosing and non-problematic rocks and stones. We're here.
So practically speaking, I think the safest thing for me is to ask God to help me make good choices. He doesn't seem unwilling to hear that prayer.
Several times now I have seen someone use an anecdote like that one as an analogy to something God did. No analogy of this type can work, however, because the actors of the anecdotes aren't omniscient; whereas, God is.
It probably is not a perfect anecdote. But a "repentent" God in the Bible is very useful to me. Otherwise I would assume that God is apathetic and has no feeling about anything.
An apathetic God who cannot say that He is sorry about something that has occured, is to me, a malicious being.
I find no comfort in thinking God knows all and just doesn't care therefore who does what. Christ's love and redemptive act impresses me more than the philosophical paradox of an omiscient God saying that He was sorry about something that men did.
God knew that Adam was going to eat from the tree, that men were going to be wicked, that Lot's wife was going to turn back, and that I would give no more credence to the Bible than I do to Marvel Comics.
I didn't see that the calender in the western world has been divided up BC and AD according to Spider Man or the Batman. But I see that Jesus of Nazareth has had a cataclysmic impact on human history. There must be some difference there.
Yet He ousted Adam,
Yet He also promised Adam and his wife a salvation by predicting a Conqueror over the deceiving enemy.
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed; He will bruise you on the head, But you will bruise him on he heel (Gen. 3:15)
Some of us believe that the woman's seed refers to the virgin born Savior Jesus who was to come latter. Every other seed of offspring in the Bible is a man's seed.
And in His redemptive death on the cross He crushed the work of Satan and brings the sons of Adam back to eternal life.
So I think you have a tendency only to see the negative side of things in the Bible. This is biased and warped.
Flooded the Earth,
And saved the animals and Noah and family for a new start. And He promised never to wipe out all life on earth again in a flood. This served as a significant lesson for future generations as Jesus Christ is now the divine / human ark which will carry the saved from the coming judgment into the new world.
Again you manifest your tendency to only see the negative side of things in the Bible.
turn Irit into a pillar of salt,
Do you mean Lot's wife? But she did get saved from the judgement of Sodom. So the lesson here is that one could be saved from a worst destruction but only to become a pillar of shame.
This is very valuable lesson to those awaiting the rapture. It is not enough to simply come out physically. God's salvation acts to ring us out of the place of judgment in our heart, psychologically as well. If we did not have the example of Lot's wife we might think that God only wants to physically remove us from the evil world. No He desires to separate our inward being from that evil as well.
You see Lot's wife did not come out of Sodom in her heart though she did come out physically. This is a tremdendous lesson for all believers in Christ to take heed to.
I wish you could get some help to view some of these stories also from the positive side.
and is biding His time to send me to Hell.
I do not know the state of your standing before God. But I would suggest that God's "biding His time" is designed to lead you to repentence and salvation. At least we are told so:
"The Lord does not delay regarding the promise, as some count delay, but is long-suffering toward you, not intending that any perish but that all advance to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)
You could thank God that He has still given you time.
This complaint of yours does not sound like one who regards the Bible as no more valid than a comic book. It sounds like you have some real concern there.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by lyx2no, posted 01-02-2009 1:45 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Brian, posted 01-04-2009 11:47 AM jaywill 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