|
Author
|
Topic: Does the Bible say the Earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago?
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3396 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
Message 13 of 319 (489700)
11-29-2008 11:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Integral
11-28-2008 6:33 PM
|
|
Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
Not something i could imagine a middle eastern man 4000 years ago could make up... Creation stories can be found in abundance from all over the world. Here is one from Sumeria, Abraham's home land:
In the first days when everything needed was brought into being,
In the first days when everything needed was properly nourished,
When bread was baked in the shrines of the land,
And bread was tasted in the homes of the land,
When heaven had moved away from the earth,
And earth had separated from heaven,
And the name of man was fixed;
When the Sky God, An, had carried off the heavens,
And the Air God, Enlil, had carried off the earth. Here it describes the creation of man from a Summerian myth about the birth of humanity:
The gods were dredging the rivers,
were piling up their silt
on projecting bends--
and the gods lugging the clay
began complaining and from the Old-Babylonian Atrahasis Creation Epic predating Moses penning his creation story:
Create a human to bear the yoke.
Let him bear the yoke, the task of Enlil,
Let man carry the load of the gods.
Let them slaughter one god,
So that all the gods may be purified by dipping.
With his flesh and blood
Let Nintu mix clay.
So let god and man be mingled
Together in the clay.
does not the ancient Babylonian Enma Eli creation story not sound earily familiar to Genesis 1
When on high heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Aps, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamat, the mother of them both,
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen; I think the main difference between the ancient Sumerian/Babylonian creation myths and that of Moses is a paradime shift from polytheism to monotheism. Thus it is not that hard to see how Moses could have derived and expounded on more ancienct creation myths passed down from generation to generation from Abraham's originial homeland in Sumeria (Babylonia).
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Integral, posted 11-28-2008 6:33 PM | | Integral has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 14 by jaywill, posted 11-29-2008 4:38 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has not replied | | | Message 17 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 5:22 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3396 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 24 of 319 (489840)
11-30-2008 11:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
11-30-2008 5:22 AM
|
|
Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
you will also notice that no other ancient creation accounts describe the order of earths creation An existing Planet Atmosphere Created Dry Land Bought Forth Sea Creatures Created Flying Creatures Created Vegetation created Land Animals Created Mammals Created Mankind Created you wont find another creation account as believable as this one
You skewed your "order of creation" and left out some key elements. Here is the correct order straight from Genesis 1: Genesis 1:1-5 Day 1 - Light/Dark Genesis 1:6-8 Day 2 - Atmosphere ("Heaven") Genesis 1:9-13 Day 3 - Dry Land ("Earth") Land plants Genesis 1:14-19 Day 4 - Sun & Moon Stars Genesis 1:20-23 Day 5 - Sea animals Flying animals Genesis 1:24-31 Day 6 - Land animals Humans Thus according to the Biblical creation account the sun, moon and stars are created 3 days into his creation. Also the word for word Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 from the Masoratic text is ‘ ‘ — which literally means " In (a) beginning filled God the heavens and the earth". In the more literal English Bible translations such as the NRSV it states "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth" and from Young's Literal Translation "1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,". The Jewish translation of the Hebrew is "In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth." (Judaica Press Complete Tanach) or "When God began to create heaven and Earth"(Jewish Publication Society 3rd ed). The modern translation of "In the beginning God create the heavens and earth" really derives from the Greek Septuagint of the OT which literally word for word translates to "In beginning God made the heaven and the earth". However it seems likely that the Hebrew to Greek translation process introduced some translation errors i.e. some words and phrases in Hebrew have no Greek counterpart. Thus it is more accurate to work off of the Masoratic text. It is also important to note that most accurate translations of the OT rely more heavily on the MT to the Septuagint when they differ. Thus the assumption by modern Christians that Genesis 1:1 implies ex nihlo is really unfounded. Ex nihlo is a latin phrase meaning "out of nothing" Therefore, it is more likely that the original meaning of this verse is similar to that ancient Canaanite view of creatio ex materia or "creation out of eternally preexistent matter". The Hebrew word ‘ "bara" does not directly translate to the English word "create" instead it more literally means "to fatten" or more loosely "to fill up" thus implieng previously existing matter (chaotic earth) in which to "fill". You can study this further here: Word of the Week ‘ (BaRA) as well as elsewhere. The ex nihlo concept is not native to the ancient Israelite thinking and is found nowhere in the Hebrew Bible (the Christian OT). In fact the only references of ex nihlo can be found in the NT and in a reference in the deuterocanonical book of II Maccabees which are both heavily influenced by the Greek philosophical world views and were imported directly into the Christian religion. For example, the Greek writer Xenophon wrote that parents "bring forth their children out of non-being' To expound on this. The Hebrew word "shamayim" literally means "heaven" used to mean the visible area where the sun, moon, planets and stars reside. In ancient civilizations the heavens was thought to be the realm of the gods. The two pre-semitic root words making up the compounded word Shamayim actually means "lofty" and "water" respectively, probably derived from the obvious realization that water fell from the sky in the form of rain. It is also interesting to note that the Canaanites Shamayim (Heaven) is the father of El (El-ohim in the Bible literally means "He who is the object of fear or reverence" however the word is actually plural). The Hebrew word "eretz" (or "erets") literally means "earth", "soil", "land", "world", or "country". The root of eretz(s) is er which means literally "to be firm". Why do I bring this up? The fact is that a chaotic earth (eretz) and heaven (shamayim) exist at the beginning along with Elohim according to Genesis 1:1-2. However on day 2 he creates the firmament or sky (raqiya`) and on day 3 dry land (ra'ah) not etez or shamayim. So really the Biblical creation should be described as ex chaos (out of chaotic material) not ex nihilo (out of nothing). Here is a link of what Rashi (or Rabbi Solomon Izhaqi) a Jewish scholar writes of Genesis 1 (translated into English. Also Dr. Peter Hayman the president of the British Society for Jewish Studies said this:
Hayman writes: Nearly all recent studies on the origin of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to Judaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible, and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C.E. in the course of its fierce battle with Gnosticism. The one scholar who continues to maintain that the doctrine is native to Judaism, namely Jonathan Goldstein, thinks that it first appears at the end of the first century C.E., but has recently conceded the weakness of his position in the course of debate with David Winston." Of course this is my own personal opinion, but I spent several hours studying this specific material (not counting my 20+ years studying of intra and extra biblical evidence and apologetics) and have based it on a wide range of evidence.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 5:22 AM | | Peg has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 34 by ICANT, posted 12-01-2008 6:05 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3396 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 25 of 319 (489878)
11-30-2008 3:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by Peg
11-30-2008 5:38 AM
|
|
Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
Peg writes: and he doesnt have any of those crazy gods stories like one who fought with his wife and used part of her body to create the sea and another to create the land and then when they had a child, that childs tears dripped onto a leaf that turned into a human No, but the Bible does have some pretty wild and outlandish tall tales. I am sorry I couldn't resist but I found these stories from the Top 10 Bizarre Biblical Tales pretty hysterical:
10. A lesson for those who dare mock male pattern baldness Found in: 4 Kings 2:23-24 One of the more inspirational passages in the Bible tells the story of Elijah, a wise man, yet one cursed with male pattern baldness. One day he was minding his own business, making the long walk to Bethel, when he is attacked by a roving band of children who tease him with names like “bald head.” But Elijah was having none of this, he turns round and curses them in the name of the Lord, and instantly two female bears emerge from a nearby wood and maul all 42 children to death. The moral of this story? Don’t make fun of bald people. Frankly, why this story isn’t included along with the Ten Commandments is anybody’s guess, but I think it would serve as an excellent lesson for children who think baldness is something to be made fun of.
9. Eglon’s ignoble death Found in: Judges 3:21-25 Ehud is the Bible’s sneakiest assassin (and also the only left-handed person mentioned in the Holy Book). He is on a mission to deliver a “message from God” to smarmy King Eglon. Ehud waltzes in to meet the gluttonous king, pulls out a sword and stabs Eglon in the stomach. At first he can’t get it in, but he pushes harder and eventually reaches his intestine. Eglon is so overweight, we learn, that his fat actually covers the hilt of the sword, pushing it further into his stomach until it’s not even visible. It’s at this point that Eglon loses control of his bowels and begins to defecate mercilessly all over his chamber. The King’s attendants eventually come back, but do not enter Eglon’s bed chamber, assuming he is relieving himself. After waiting “to the point of embarrassment”, his attendants burst in to find their king dead on the floor, covered in his own faecal matter. Meanwhile, Ehud had escaped to the town of Seriah. The moral of this story? Who cares, but it’s damn cool.
8. Onan - cautious, yet foolish Found in: Genesis 38:8-10 A story so eponymous, it gave way to its own neologism - onanism, an archaic term for masturbation. Basically, God kills Er. Why? We don’t really find out. However, in a stroke of good luck, Er’s father, Judah, has given you the right, nay the duty, to have sex with your dead brother’s wife. Onan is a bit apprehensive at first, but agrees to go through with this bizarre scheme to create a ”true heir’ to Er. He begins to have sex with the girl, but at the last minute decides to pull out and spill “his seed upon the ground.” God is so irked he decides to kill Onan too, and thus nobody gets an heir. This story is the basis for the Christian condemnation of masturbation and birth control. The moral of this story? In the words of Monty Python, “Every sperm is sacred . ” 7. A very disturbing tale Found in: Judges 19:22-30 Within the Bible, one occasionally finds stories so horrible, one can wonder what their purpose is. Not only is this story utterly bizarre, but it is also absolutely disgusting. A man and his concubine are wandering the streets when they decide to seek shelter for the night, and find a man kind enough to let them stay. That night however, a group of men turn up at the door and demand to see the guest so that they may have sex with him. The owner is unwilling to let his male lodger be raped and so offers up his virgin daughter instead. However, this is still not good enough for the men, so the owner offers them his guest’s concubine and the men accept. The men brutally rape the woman and leave her on the doorstep where she bleeds to death. If that is not enough, when she is found by her husband, he chops her up into twelve pieces which he sends to each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The moral of this story? I would hope none. 6. A novel way to show your love Found in: 1 Kings 18:25-27 Before Byron, before Casanova, there was David. Young and in love, David desperately wants to marry Saul’s daughter Michal and offers Saul anything he wants to let him marry her. What could Saul possibly want? Money? A vow of love? No. Saul wants foreskins. 100 to be exact. Why? Who cares. If you want my daughter, you’re going to have to find 100 foreskins by tomorrow. David finds this odd, but then again this girl is hot, so he goes out and kills 200 men, and collects their foreskins. It’s only then he remembers that he only needs 100 foreskins. Oops. Oh well, maybe if he hands over twice as many foreskins, Saul will be doubly as impressed. Indeed he is and duly hands over his daughter to David. The moral of this story? Never be ashamed to do crazy things for love. 5. Like slicing salami Found in: Exodus 4:24-26 Continuing the Bible’s fascination with all things foreskin, we get the bizarre story of God trying to kill Moses because his son isn’t circumcised. God is about to obliterate Moses when his wife Zipporah takes out a flint and quickly cuts the foreskin of his son (ouch), throwing the bloody skin fragment at Moses’ feet. “You are a bloody husband to me!” squeals Zipporah, flint in one hand, child in other. God, clearly freaked out by this woman, backs off and Moses is saved. The moral of this story? Never turn down a woman for being a psycho. Someday she may save your life. 4. Jesus and the fig tree Found in: Matthew 21:19; Mark 11:13-14 So, Jesus is walking from Bethany and he’s feeling a bit peckish. He encounters a fig tree, but unfortunately it is barren as it’s the off season for figs. Annoyed, Jesus demands the fig tree bear him fruit, however the fig tree doesn’t respond (it’s a tree), so Jesus, in an act of uncharacteristic rashness, curses the fig tree to death. This story is bizarre for many reasons, but mainly for how little it means to the Jesus story and how Jesus seems to react so harshly. OK, so he’s hungry, and we all get a little cranky when hungry, but come on, the fig tree had done nothing wrong. This just seems like abuse of powers to me. The moral of this story? I honestly can’t think of one. This story seems so unimportant and purposeless yet both Mark and Matthew mention it so it must have some importance. The best I can think of is: don’t disobey Jesus, even if you’re an inanimate tree. 3. Even God is proud of his backside Found in: Exodus 33:23 It’s a big day for Moses. He’s finally going to meet God face to face and is giddy with anticipation. Soon the time comes and Moses positions himself on a rock ready to see the divine creator himself. But God backs out at the last minute claiming that no man can see his face and live. However, he has a solution. He will let Moses have a peek at his backside, “And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.” Moses must be heartbroken. He was hoping to see God’s face not his bottom! Imagine explaining that to the wife: “Oh honey, did you see God’s face?” “Umm not quite . I got a great look at his ass though!” Moses most likely slept alone that night. The moral of this story? God works in mysterious (and slightly gay) ways. 2. Balaam and his talking donkey Found in: Numbers 22:28-30 Balaam is just minding his own business, spanking his ass (donkey) when suddenly he hears a voice. It’s his donkey who is asking him why he is spanking him. Balaam doesn’t seem the least bit miffed that his donkey has starting talking in the same language as him and says, “Because thou hast mocked me.” The donkey then gets philosophical and explains the nature of their relationship and how his feelings have been hurt. Eventually they make peace. Oh yeah did I mention it was TALKING DONKEY? The moral of this story? Don’t beat animals. If they could talk then they would probably tell you how upset they were. 1. Jacob and the case of the magical genetics Found in: Genesis 30:37-39 And the most bizarre tale in the Bible goes too . this head-scratcher from Genesis, with its utterly bemusing explanation of the genetic code. Basically, Laban is taking all of Jacob’s beloved striped and spotted cattle. Jacob is left with boring old, plain-colored cattle, which he doesn’t seem to like at all. So Jacob concocts a cunning plan: he gets some sticks and begins painting stripes on them. He then plants them next to his cattle. What Jacob thinks is that if he gets his cattle to look at the striped sticks while copulating, then they will give birth to striped young. Now, we’d all expect this idiotic plan to fail and Jacob to learn a lesson about something or other, but no it actually works. The cattle give birth to striped young, and Jacob is happy. What on earth is going on here? Anyone with the most basic understanding of genetics knows that this is bunk. The odd thing is that this story seems to have no purpose and moral - it’s just there. And I can’t help wondering how many scientists with painted sticks had attempted to repeat this process before Mendel came along and said, “I’m pretty sure that’s not how it’s supposed to happen fellas, why don’t we try this instead?” The moral of this story? Your guess is as good as mine. Hope you enjoy and don't take these too seriously, I was just trying to inject some humor here. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 5:38 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 28 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 10:28 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3396 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
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. 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. 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.
Ezekiel 5:12-15 writes: Eat the food as you would a barley cake; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel." The LORD said, "In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled food among the nations where I will drive them." Then I said, "Not so, Sovereign LORD! I have never defiled myself. From my youth until now I have never eaten anything found dead or torn by wild animals. No unclean meat has ever entered my mouth"."Very well," he said, "I will let you bake your bread over cow manure instead of human excrement." Besides the yuch factor, God changes his mind and allows Ezekiel to eat a cow dung pie instead of one made from human crap.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3396 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
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...Come on DA use that Navy knogin.
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.  Anyways, my point in bring these few scriptures up was to show how anyone on reading the Bible could see how inconsistent the persona of God is in the Bible even to a first time reader. I understand the modern Christians' attempt to justify all the attrocities and inconsistencies in the Bible. Remember, I used to be in your shoes (religiously) as well. 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. 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. You may want to change your tactics if you are trying to save the lost as dictated by Jesus' Great Commission. And saying your "kidding" does not remove any responsibility for the things you say, it just shows how shallow and immature you appear to be (no matter what your real age is). Anywho. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3396 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
Bertot writes: Myself 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?. LOL, is that a real word or do you just make up your own religious jargon.
Obviously you already know what the truth is in these matters. You are quite right on this point.
You just need to apply allitle common sense and come on home, brother. Common sense, analytical research, and logical deduction is how I got to the point where I am at now. Thanks for the vote of confidence though.
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. I usually try to only attack the positions not the person (except when they are being extremely obnoxious and annoying). There are many Christians, deists and theists on this forum that I have a pretty good decorum of respectability with.
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. What tense situation are you talking about and why do you think I am not calm? You have no clue what my demenor is or anything about me. I have never heard of the term Squidwart in reference to a Sailor except on Spongebob Squarepants. The term Squid is usually a derogatory term when used by members of other services and usually ended up with people throwing each other out of bar windows, however I'll overlook your insult, flyboy  . Usually we use the term squid within the Navy to denote us surface sailors vice the bubbleheads (submariners) and the Navy brown shoes (aviators).
Trust me I was not insulting you. Ok, no harm no foul. Like I said it really doesn't bother me it just hurts your own reputation when keep on with this arrogant, "I know better than you" attitude.
You seem to be very knowledgable in what I call nit noid facts as well, as your post are very thourough at times. Oooh, I love word games. Than this would make you the king of blivity!
I believe this is Hank Henagraph, correct? I listen to him on the radio at times. Right, Hank Hanegraaff conducts the Christian apologetics Q&A "Bible Answer Man" radio show. I actually called in once years ago.
Two of my favorite denominationalist speakers are Ravi Zachariahs and Alistair Begg, if that is how you spell thiers names. I have one if Ravi Zachaiah's book's upstairs somewhere. Really smart man though there is much I disagree with home in his philosophy i.e. his view that human morality can only be bestowed by an omipotent supernatural being. I have only heard Alistair Begg one time on the radio, he seemed kind of arrogant.
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. I have no problem with them, I just disagree with the whole unsubstantiate blind faith thing. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3396 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 157 of 319 (492930)
01-04-2009 1:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 151 by Buzsaw
01-04-2009 10:21 AM
|
|
Btw, be honest. Are you the devil's Advocate or are you playing the devil's advocate? That is for me to know and you to find out.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 151 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2009 10:21 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3396 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 207 of 319 (493737)
01-10-2009 1:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 206 by ICANT
01-10-2009 11:31 AM
|
|
Re: Re Darkons
So are you saying there are no particles of darkness? Because according to darkon theoreticians there is no such thing as light because light is the absence of the particles of darkness. So because darknesss was over the earth which had become formeless and void in Genesis 1:2.. You jump to the conclusion that darkness is the default position. No problem you are entitled to your opinion right or wrong. But isn't the universe beginning in darkness a little unscientific? You are joking right?
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 206 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2009 11:31 AM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 209 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2009 1:48 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3396 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 210 of 319 (493766)
01-10-2009 5:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 209 by ICANT
01-10-2009 1:48 PM
|
|
Re: Re Darkons
So because darknesss was over the earth which had become formeless and void in Genesis 1:2.. You jump to the conclusion that darkness is the default position. No problem you are entitled to your opinion right or wrong. But isn't the universe beginning in darkness a little unscientific?
Ok I assume you are saying the light of God lit the universe. Correct? You are not saying though that without any external source of light i.e. without the presence of God, stars, etc. , that darkness would not be the default condition. Correct?
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 209 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2009 1:48 PM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 214 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2009 1:48 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2