|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 41 (9241 total) |
| |
Isabella Belle | |
Total: 921,827 Year: 2,149/6,935 Month: 95/178 Week: 1/38 Day: 1/5 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Bible say the Earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 533 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
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. Come on Rrhain, use you head for something besides a theatrical hat rack. Certainly anyone with any intellect at all can see that from an omnipotent perspective, these statements are to be understood as anthropomorphic in character. Gods overall all plan in history, peoples lives and in human affairs is put in such a way so we can look at it from our perspective. Example: "The EYES of the Lord are over all the righteouss, his EARS are open unto thier prayers, but the FACE of the Lord is against them which do evil". God is Spirit, they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth. We can only understand communication through these means, so Gods characteristics are represented in a way we can understand. Those passages that characterize God as implying he made mistakes should be understood in the same context. Its part of a plan that involves free will, yet God knows his plan from the beginning andits purpose to fulfillment. How could omnipotence do otherwise. It is my belief that you understand this already and this is a cavil presented as a distraction. But then again you could not see the difference between a tautology and an axiom either, ha, ha. D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 533 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
DA writes:
And this would just be your subjective interpretation of this scripture Bertot. You do not have any more of a leg to stand on than they way in which Rhains interpreted this scripture. Darn it. I was really hoping for a response from Rrhain, but I suppose yours will have to do for now. Im hesitant to respond to yours because they demonstrate a bit of simplicity and immaturity that is hard to get use to. Besides this your debating skills are sloppy, inefficient and a bit lacking in understanding. No No No, dont get mad I am just kiding, there squidward. I like to add a bit of humor to an otherwise tense situation. You know that male jousting thingy. Anywho. DA writes:Here are some more instances of God changing his mind or seeming not be as omniscient as modern Christians make him out to be: Genesis 18:20-21 writes: Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." God states that he will go down to Sodom and Gomorrah to determine if the city is as wicked as it seems to be. So God comes to destroy a place that he is not sure of and enters into a bargain with Abraham, that if he can find 5 righteouss people he will not destroy it. You do remember this part, right, DA? It should be fairly obvious that he did already know there were none righteouss people therefrom the context correct. Besides this he is God DA. Come on DA use that Navy knogin. Hey guess what as it turns out God was right after all there were none, except Lot and his faimily, which did not belong there in the first place. Boy my God is neat isnt he with those neat little magic tricks of his. No just kidding again. I hope the following article sheds some light. http://www.carm.org
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY http://www.carm.org HOME PAGE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anthropomorphism:God relates to us in human terms Anthropomorphism comes from two Greek words: anthropos (man) and morphe (form). Therefore, an anthropomorphism is when God appears to us or manifests Himself to us in human form or even attributes to Himself human characteristics. We see this all over the Bible -- and rightly so. After all, we cannot ascend to where God is, but He can descend to where we are.Following are a few verses from the Bible that ascribe to God human actions, attributes, and emotions. Remember, God works with us in our time frame. He has endured not only eternity, but also human history as He moves through it and through and with people to bring about His sovereign will and purpose. Should we then assume that God would not relate to us in terms familiar to our own actions? And should we not also assume that in so doing God will present aspects of Himself to us that would be paradoxical? Take for example the fact that God is all powerful (Jer. 32:17,27 ), yet He rests (Gen. 2:2). We see that God is in all places (Psalm 139:7-12), yet He asks Adam, "Where are you?" (Gen. 3:9). We see that God knows all things (1 John 3:20). Yet, we see that God says, "Now I know that you fear God..." (Gen. 22:12). If, as the Open Theist wants to assert that God does not know all future events because He says, for example, to Abraham, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me,” (Gen. 22:12) then can we also not assert that since God asks "Adam, where are you?" that God is not in all places since if God was in all places He would know exactly where Adam was? Or if God rests that does it mean that God is not all powerful? Of course not. Open Theism simply reduces the attribute of God's omniscience by exalting the condition of man's freedom. Whenever man is exalted, God must be lessened. This is the fundamental problem in Open Theism: It raises man's sovereignty so much, that God's qualities and attributes must be lessened; namely, God is not all knowing. Following are various verses that demonstrate God's human-like manifestation to us in actions, emotions, and physique. Thus we can see that such condescension on God's part to us will naturally result in God saying things that will require a deeper examination. Human actions - changed mind, relented, remembered, restedExodus 32:14, "So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people." 2 Sam. 24:16, "When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord relented from the calamity, and said to the angel who destroyed the people, “It is enough! Now relax your hand!” Gen. 9:16, “When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” Gen. 2:2, "And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done." Human emotions - sorrow, jealousy, pity, regret Gen. 6:6, "And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart." Exodus 20:5, "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me." Judges 2:18, "...for the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who oppressed and afflicted them." 1 Sam. 15:35, "And Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death; for Samuel grieved over Saul. And the Lord regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel." Human physique - hands, face, mouth, eyes, arm. Exodus 7:5, "And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst.” Num. 6:24, "The Lord make His face shine on you, and be gracious to you." Psalm 33:6, "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host." Psalm 34:15, "The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous, and His ears are open to their cry." Psalm 89:10, "Thou Thyself didst crush Rahab like one who is slain; Thou didst scatter Thine enemies with Thy mighty arm." Other - Wings Psalm 57:1, "Be gracious to me, O God, be gracious to me, for my soul takes refuge in Thee; and in the shadow of Thy wings I will take refuge, until destruction passes by." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to Open Theism -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRYHome | Contact | Newsletter | Publications | Online Schools Support CARM | Copying and Linking | Report an error Statement of Faith | Theology Quiz Copyright Matthew J. Slick, 1995 - 2008 Caleb colley writes:"God knows what is right and wrong, because He defines morality and truth”His Word is the standard for righteous judgment. Hannah wanted desperately to have a child, but she was unable to do so. In her fervent request for God’s intervention, she prayed: “ . the Lord is the God of knowledge; and by Him actions are weighed” (1 Samuel 2:3). God has revealed what to do in order to please Him, and He knows of our obedience and disobedience (Proverbs 15:3)." 'The Omniscience of God', Apologetics press Caleb Colley Here is the entire article. The Omniscience of God - Apologetics Press D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 533 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
DA writes:
And ad hominum attacks do nothing to bolster your position. They just make you look arrogant and condescending. If you are trying to convert me you are doing a pitiful job at it. Dont you mean unrelostrelate you?. Obviously you already know what the truth is in these matters. You just need to apply allitle common sense and come on home, brother.
BTW, I have been called worse both in and outside the Navy, so it really doesn't matter what you say to me, I don't take it personally, but when you insult me it just hurts your own position and makes it look like your another pompous, self-righteous, religious jerk on the Internet. So let me get this straight. As long as I am acting like a sempering, cowering defensless Christian and taking all of your abuse, ridicule and insults in your posts Im a good Christian and you will use that against me as well. Pretty neat little system you have set up thier DA. It reminds me of that song: "Kick em when thier up, kick em when thier down. Kick em when thier up, kick em all around". Maybe its you that needs to adjust his attitude, or am I non Christian for saying so. DA, calm down. It was just alittle humor to lighten the otherwise tense situation. Its ok if you call me fly boy, wing nut or Smurf. Trust me I was not insulting you. I believe your skills are as good as any here I have seen. You seem to be very knowledgable in what I call nit noid facts as well, as your post are very thourough at times.
Also, I used CARM alot as well when I was a Christian. It is a good fallback when in attempting to justify many of the Bible's inconsistencies. Here is another good Christian apologetics website that I once used: Christian Research Institute. I believe this is Hank Henagraph, correct? I listen to him on the radio at times. Two of my favorite denominationalist speakers are Ravi Zachariahs and Alistair Begg, if that is how you spell thiers names. Truth For Life - The Bible-Teaching Ministry of Alistair Begg and 403 Forbidden
Thanks for the other one I will take a look at it. These are two of the best apologists and speakers I have ever heard, Ihope you enjoy thier sermons. Your friend D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 533 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Peg
why doesnt the 7th day come to an end??? anyone??? Your kidding ofcourse, correct? Do you need to be told that it came to an end,to know that it did? Further, of what value would it be to you even if it directly stated it did? Isnt it a reasonable conclusion that if the others did that this one did as well. if the rest of the scriptures speak of other days beginning and ending after this seventh day, happenings in peoples lives, so to speak, would it not be reasonable to conclude the seventh day was a 24 hour peiod as well. Im missing the validity of your point. D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 533 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Peg writes:
And why was it later said by the apostle that the Gods rest day was still in progress??? Peg I think I know which verse you are refering to but could you cite it in its context, the one by the Apostle Paul that is. D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 533 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Peg writes:
What was Paul’s point? It was that “the seventh day,” which God had set aside to allow his purpose regarding the earth and mankind to be fully accomplished, was still running its course. This was probably not Paul, but another inspired writer, perhaps Apollos or Barnabas or another faithful child of God. No one really knows. First it should be noted that the actual 24 hour period should be distinquished from the metaphorical application of the idea of rest, or completion of Gods work. The 24 hour literal period was in the time that God completed his work. This is the idea of the word rest, he completed in perfection his present work. Yhe rest spoken of while a part of that day, should be distinquished in its application to the 24 hour period. In other words that literal day that came and went has a separate meaning from the "rest" of God and the "rest" that the children of Israel and the later Christians experienced in the fulfillment of Gods purposes in Christ and the Chruch. All of the OT ten commandments were carried over in the NT, except the command to remember the sabbath day and all of its obsevances, to keep it holy. "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinaces, that which was contrary to us, taking it out of the way nailing it to the cross". The writer of the Hebrew letter is therefore trying to demonstrate to a people of stricly Jewish background that God has promised a more than physical type of rest. "In that day", ofcourse refers to a general time period, not ofcourse, to a specific calendar time period. The idea however,of Gods sabbath rest was and is still observed in the the new age in the Church. Rest in these contexts should not be understood as simply taking a break, but rest in the context as slavery from sin, and all that involves. So the idea that it is still running its course would have nothing to do with the actual seventh day, or that God has not completed his work, but that he is longsuffering and will still allow people to enter into that rest (The Church, blood of Christ and salvation from sin) while there is time Your mistake may be in assuming the actual day has anything to do with a completion of work (rest). I am not sure this is whatyou are getting at, but I hope it helps. D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 533 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Peg writes:
thanks Bertot, im not trying to turn this into a discussion about Gods Rest, im simply trying to understand how all the preceeding 6 days are viewed as literal 24hrs when clearly Moses word for DAY does not mean a literal 24hours in context of the 7th day. So, why must is it being considered literal in the first 6 'days' but not in the 7th. Because nothing in the context would indicate otherwise and everything in the context would suggest just that conclusion, that it also was a 24 hour day. Can you find something in the context to suggest it was not, other than it does not state that directly. In other words your assumption should be based on somethig better than speculation, correct? Please forgive me, I understand where you are coming from, but it doesnt seem to make much sense, other than "I wonder". As Buzzsaw indicated the solar bodies were now in place to indicate the marking of these designations. "In the seventh day God FINISHED all his work of creation so he rested fronm all his work. 2. And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, becuase it was the day when he rested from all his work of creation" Are we missing something? D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 533 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Peg writes:
the solar bodies did not become visible until the 4th day... so from an earthly perspective, there would not have been a sun and moon at this stage therefore to interpret the meaning as a literal 24hr period is not really in context. I can appreciate your intimations here to indicate that perhaps the days were more than a 24 hour period. The text if it it is to be understood in simple terminology clearly indicates as much. Further as ICANT, indicates in Gen 2:1 and 2 by the end of the sixth day the heavens were complete and finished. So it would then be of no consequence as to what existed prior to the sun or moons actual creation. Unless you can find a metaphorical meaning for the expressions "and the evening and the morning were the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth day", then it would be reasonable to assume that these were literally 24 hour periods, atleast that is what is indicated by the text. If you can read something else into these expressions, you would have to demonstrate why you are justified in doing so. Adam and Eve would ofcourse become also metaphorical in character. Is your indication to imply that perhaps these days were great expanses of time to include evolution into the mix? Of is your indication that there is some significance to the seventh day continuing to this point? Im not really seeing what your direct implication is in this proposition. In other words you keep repeating that the seventh day did not come to an end and you keep asking why. Do you have a perspective as to why you believe this to be the case. Go ahead and state your position in this context, if you have one. D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 533 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Peg writes:
for starters, the 'LIGHT' was called the 'DAY' in vs 2. So it obviously wasnt referring to a literal 24 hour rotation in the first instance yet the same word was used througout. this is just one reason why I do not believe that it is talking about a literal 24hr period. I see your point here but what would you make of the expression, the "evening and the morning were the first day". Would I and others not be justified in concluding that 'perhaps', these may indeed be considered literal time periods. Yes it is true the word day could mean more than a 24 hour period, as in the "The day of the Lord", etc, but the only reason we believe it is a 24 hour period, is due to the expression "the evening and the morning". In other words am I not justified, if one does not consider this as a myth or a poem, as does that delightful Autunman.
1. Pauls words thousands of years later showing that Gods rest was still in progress The word rest in Gen refers to Gods completion of creation. Pauls use of the word later is an illustration of application to demonstrate a bigger point as that delightful Jaywill and ICANT have pointed out in related posts. The writer of the Hebrew letter is not meaning to imply that the word REST does not mean what it means in context. So is it your contention that Adam and Eve were not literal charachters? Because if they were, they were created on the sixth day, lived all of the seventh and into the eighth day. If they were not literal characters, would this not make them much older than the ages given, and perhaps even with us today, if the days did not proceed as 24 hour periods and the seventh day is still literally here?
3. the age of the earth itself Some believe the flood answers all of these questions. Further, have you considered the Gap theory? Gen may involve a time period to inlude more than one creation process or a starting over period. Perhaps he included in this discription all of the creation process and then gave an explanation relative to our perspective. "The earth was without form and void", may mean after its reformation after a previous time. This is one perspective. My spiritual brothers may disagree with me in this context, as they may iindicate by thier responses. Perhaps we will see. D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 533 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Kiwi writes:
Is there then a meeting place between science and the Book of Genesis? Yes, there is and it comes from the understanding that Genesis is not a science text-book, that it was written in order to understand, not HOW the world came to be but WHY. The question is, is it necessary to FIND a meeting place between science and religion. The answer is no. Only compromise would suggest that we need to do this, not the facts. There is no existing evidence to suggest that those days should not be taken literal, especially in its context.
Modern science shows that the earth is billions of years in age, it comes to this conclusion in a number of ways and I recommend the following site for information even a non-scientist can understand, The Age of the Earth .
The suggested age of the earth has little or nothing to do with the literal character of Genesis. Again ignoring the power and miraculous nature of God seeks for a compromise in this connection.
Genesis 1 & 2 are parables, they are parables about why there is an earth, why humans and animals and plants share it in common and why there is pain and suffering in the world. Parables are stories which may or may not be literally true but which imparts to us an important spiritual truth. In the New Testament we have parables such as the Good Samaritan, the evil vine-dressers; the parable of the prodigal son. None of those New Testament stories are literal fact but they are true in a deeper, more meaningful way. So it is with the parables of Genesis 1 & 2. In them we are not being told that the world was created in six days, six thousand years ago. We are, however, being told that the world was created by God's intention, that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and that God is a close to us as a friend who walks and talks with us in the cool of the day. The writers of the same Bible did not believe these to be parables. Furthermore, if they are parables then it becomes necessary to question every principle or teaching and every statement about everything or anybody in every verse of the Bible. This quickly starts to breakdown any method of believing any teaching in the scriptures. Fir example, is Jesus the son of God, did he actually come and live in the flesh, or are all of these parables as well. I think you immediately see your problem in this connection. Then this fellow was a liar. 1 John 1.
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us![]() 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. 5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. Further, 1 John 4.1 John 4
1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. If the stories are parables, then how do we distinquish between actual fact and symbolysim. If we have to guess,pick and choose, then this fellow, an inspired Apostle was quite possibly a liar and demonstrates that it is immpossible to distinguish between truth and error. Again:
1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 1 John 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. What part of the testimony of God should we designate as symbolic or suggest that it is not necessarily true. Kiwi writes:Adam and Eve, the Fall, the Serpent, Noah and his Ark may or may not be literal truth but they are markers of ultimate truth, of truth which can be held only in the imagination, of truth which can only be shown in images and symbols. Genesis can only be understood in that it is our story, each of us is Adam, each of us is Eve, we misunderstand the Genesis parables when we fail to realize that they are addressed to US individually. Genesis, then, is our unique, individual story told as parable it is not some pre-scientific attempt to explain how all things came to be but rather a profound series of meditations on why things should be in the first place. Then no part of the scriptures could be taken seriously. It is a free for all on what anyone wants to believe or to apply to the scriptures as symbolic. Any teaching or command could be reduced to some metaphorical principle and as many as any human mind can contrive. Kiwi I am not telling you what to do, but I would ask you to be very careful about the things you accept as doctrine, with the following words from an Apostle who actually witnessed these things. 2 John 4I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father. 5And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. 6And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it. 7For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 9Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 533 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
How did god make something that was not good? Rrhain, sorry I did not see this post until a few minutes ago. Sorry I have not responded sooner. The expression "it is not good", should be understood from a human perspective not an omnipotent one. If he Bibles designation of God as omnipotent is to be accepted, it would mean that he did not know until a later date that man needed something else, which would simply be absurdConsider this example. In the NT it is stated that "these things were hidden since the foundation of the world" Should we therefore conclude that God was working on the plan a piece at a time, or that from a human perspecive he filtered to man the knowledge of Christ and the Chruch as he saw fit? "In the fulness of time God sent forth his son into the world". He saw the necessity to do this at appropriate times given the fact that he is he creator of mans mind and character. He did not make something that was not good, he was wroting it in such a away so man could understand Gods eternal plan in its entirity.
Even Adam gets it: Third time's the charm. Alone was a mistake. Thinking a dog would be a good companion was a mistake. Adam needed something else. Try to atleast be rational in your responses and take into consideration what the entire scripture has to say about Gods nature and make up. This will help your understanding o such statements.
So why is it so difficult to say, "This took a long time"? If the intent was to convey a huge length of time for the world as we know it to be created, why use a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day? Because it was a twenty four hour day.
Of course, this causes a problem: The geologic record specifically contradicts the biblical one if we assume the "day/age" hypothesis that cannot be justified from the text. If these "days" are literal days, then we have plants that somehow managed to survive for what is it? Months? Years? Millenia? Without the sun which is the only way they can survive. Among these plants are the fruit-bearing trees that require insects to pollinate them and yet the insects won't come for what is it? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands of years? Most plants can live a day (and I mean that literally) without the sun. Insect-pollinated plants don't need to be pollinated on a specific date in order to survive. But if you're going to say that those days lasted more than a day, then suddenly everything collapses: Nothing could survive given the chronology of Genesis. So you get to have your choice of failure. Not if the Gap theory is valid (he stared over)and not if the same God your are assuming created these things substantiates what ever else needs attending to in the process, ie the miraculous. There are simply to many alternatives that are limited by your assumptions. Consider this. You are assuming for the sake of argument that God was the creator in this instance (atleast for argument sake), so what would limit the alternatives to your contentions. Please explain.
What's to understand? Have you not read the Torah? Humans are constantly arguing with god and pointing out flaws in his arguments. Moses spends a lot of his time in the desert trying to calm god down. When god tells Abraham that he's going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham points out that god seems to have forgotten the question of innocents. After god throws a tantrum and destroys the world, he apologizes for it and promises to never do it again. So what's the problem? God makes mistakes. Everybody in the Torah recognizes this fact. It's one of the hallmarks of Judaism: There is no intercessor. That's one of the reasons that Judaism rejects Jesus. This idea that nobody comes to god except through Jesus is anathema: God deals with you directly. You deal with god directly. And one of the things that sometimes happens is that you point out god's errors. Rahain be reasonable. The source for which you are citing these errors of God is the scriptures. The same scriptures that designates God as all knowing and all powerful. So to designate these passages other than anthropomorphic, you would first need to demonstate that he is not omniptent and ominscient. Do you really believe he did not know that there were no righteous souls in Sodom? Can you not see that he was trying to demonstrate to Abraham that he does know what he is doing and that his judgement on Sodom was correct, true and absolute. Question was Sodom destroyed according to the scriptures, yes or no? So God must have had a clue, even though he was conversing with Abraham as if he was missing some information. Question do you think God could take Jacob in a wrestling match. Since Jacob pinned him in atleast the second round, we might concluse that God is not all powerful?, Ha ha Or was it that God allowed this for a purpose? D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 533 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
Like I said. You have your choice of failure methods. Pick one. Rrhain, a piece of advice, you should stick to math, if that is your expertise, you are way out of you leauge in this respect. This one is not even worthy of a reply. Thanks D Bertot
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025