Genesis Chapter 1

[BIG NIGE]

Is it possible to defend the literal text of Genesis withoutdisowning scientific method? Genesis says such things ilke the stars were created after the earth, and after light and day, and plenty of things which are categorically discredited by science. So for people who believe in the literal text of Genesis, how do the reconcile those beliefs with the scientific method?

[GoodCallYouWin]

You can't.

[BIG NIGE]

So people who believe Genesis don't believe in science at all?

[popeye18]

[ QUOTE ]
So people who believe Genesis don't believe in science at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily, Shroeder (http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Gerald-Schroeder/dp/076790303X/ref=pd_bbs_3/105-9377583-6056400?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183941983&sr=8-3) apparently tries to mend the bible and science. I havent read the book but i have read some things about it and i believe he uses the general theory of reletivity to try and explain how 15 billion years could = 6000.

Most creationists i know use the whole "A day to God might be millions of years to us" argument.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Is it possible to defend the literal text of Genesis


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no interest in debating on this forum but if you would like some thoughts on Genesis from some very intelligent people (Hugh Ross, Ph.D., astronomy, Vern Poythress, several degrees in theology plus a Ph.D., math,Harvard), see this 1 hr. radio show:


Vern (pnm://broadcast.reasons.org/rtbradio/cu20040227.rm?start=01:00:47.3)

[BIG NIGE]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So people who believe Genesis don't believe in science at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily, Shroeder (http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Gerald-Schroeder/dp/076790303X/ref=pd_bbs_3/105-9377583-6056400?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183941983&sr=8-3) apparently tries to mend the bible and science. I havent read the book but i have read some things about it and i believe he uses the general theory of reletivity to try and explain how 15 billion years could = 6000.

Most creationists i know use the whole "A day to God might be millions of years to us" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't account for the inaccurate order. A planet cannot have daylight unless it is under the orbit of a star, so it is logically impossible for light to have been "created" before the stars, as Genesis says. I'd like to hear Creationists explain what stars to God, or daylight to God, mean to us, mean to us. Or whatever other explanation they have for the puzzling order of Creation, other than the obvious one which is that the Bible is not the word of God, but rather of scientifically ignorant mortal men who thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So people who believe Genesis don't believe in science at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily, Shroeder (http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Gerald-Schroeder/dp/076790303X/ref=pd_bbs_3/105-9377583-6056400?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183941983&sr=8-3) apparently tries to mend the bible and science. I havent read the book but i have read some things about it and i believe he uses the general theory of reletivity to try and explain how 15 billion years could = 6000.

Most creationists i know use the whole "A day to God might be millions of years to us" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't account for the inaccurate order. A planet cannot have daylight unless it is under the orbit of a star, so it is logically impossible for light to have been "created" before the stars, as Genesis says. I'd like to hear Creationists explain what stars to God, or daylight to God, mean to us, mean to us. Or whatever other explanation they have for the puzzling order of Creation, other than the obvious one which is that the Bible is not the word of God, but rather of scientifically ignorant mortal men who thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I guess you would have expected a detailed dissertation that answered questions modern science has not even begun to answer?

Be realistic. A literal interpretation of Genesis (which I refuse to rule out, by the way) is not necessary in order for the Bible to fulfill it's claims about truth.

Modern scientific rigor =! truth.
Ultra-precision =! truth.

(Interestingly, you may notice that the order of appearance of earthly organisms is pretty accurate, though admittedly this could just be a coincidence.)

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to hear Creationists explain what stars to God, or daylight to God, mean to us, mean to us. Or whatever other explanation they have for the puzzling order of Creation, other than the obvious one which is that the Bible is not the word of God, but rather of scientifically ignorant mortal men who thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quickly, I'll add that there's plenty of stuff out there to look up on your own if you're interested in doing anything besides strawmanning Christianity.

www.answersingenesis.com (http://www.answersingenesis.com) (Note: I do not endorse the beliefs of this website).

You could also look into the stuff NR has linked, as well as run searches on Hugh Ross, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel (Case for a Creator is an excellent book, although it isn't within the framework of a literal Genesis), etc.

The Catholic Church issued a statement about 40 years ago (IIRC) that the ancient Jews were taught lessons "in the cosmology of their time." So if all you were looking to do was go, "HA! How can you believe such stupid stuff! GOTCHA!" Well, you're a little late.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So people who believe Genesis don't believe in science at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily, Shroeder (http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Gerald-Schroeder/dp/076790303X/ref=pd_bbs_3/105-9377583-6056400?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183941983&sr=8-3) apparently tries to mend the bible and science. I havent read the book but i have read some things about it and i believe he uses the general theory of reletivity to try and explain how 15 billion years could = 6000.

Most creationists i know use the whole "A day to God might be millions of years to us" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't account for the inaccurate order. A planet cannot have daylight unless it is under the orbit of a star, so it is logically impossible for light to have been "created" before the stars, as Genesis says. I'd like to hear Creationists explain what stars to God, or daylight to God, mean to us, mean to us. Or whatever other explanation they have for the puzzling order of Creation, other than the obvious one which is that the Bible is not the word of God, but rather of scientifically ignorant mortal men who thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I guess you would have expected a detailed dissertation that answered questions modern science has not even begun to answer?

Be realistic. A literal interpretation of Genesis (which I refuse to rule out, by the way) is not necessary in order for the Bible to fulfill it's claims about truth.

Modern scientific rigor =! truth.
Ultra-precision =! truth.

(Interestingly, you may notice that the order of appearance of earthly organisms is pretty accurate, though admittedly this could just be a coincidence.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he asked for any of that. Just for it to go in the right order.

[bills217]

And of course, how could I have forgotten Augustine's 4th century statement that the days of Genesis may not be and need not be literal 24-hour days (NR has mentioned this many times in this forum).

The questions you have are not new. You are not the first to think of them - I promise.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So people who believe Genesis don't believe in science at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily, Shroeder (http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Gerald-Schroeder/dp/076790303X/ref=pd_bbs_3/105-9377583-6056400?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183941983&sr=8-3) apparently tries to mend the bible and science. I havent read the book but i have read some things about it and i believe he uses the general theory of reletivity to try and explain how 15 billion years could = 6000.

Most creationists i know use the whole "A day to God might be millions of years to us" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't account for the inaccurate order. A planet cannot have daylight unless it is under the orbit of a star, so it is logically impossible for light to have been "created" before the stars, as Genesis says. I'd like to hear Creationists explain what stars to God, or daylight to God, mean to us, mean to us. Or whatever other explanation they have for the puzzling order of Creation, other than the obvious one which is that the Bible is not the word of God, but rather of scientifically ignorant mortal men who thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I guess you would have expected a detailed dissertation that answered questions modern science has not even begun to answer?

Be realistic. A literal interpretation of Genesis (which I refuse to rule out, by the way) is not necessary in order for the Bible to fulfill it's claims about truth.

Modern scientific rigor =! truth.
Ultra-precision =! truth.

(Interestingly, you may notice that the order of appearance of earthly organisms is pretty accurate, though admittedly this could just be a coincidence.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he asked for any of that. Just for it to go in the right order.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) That requirement does not fit a metaphor. Typically, in literature, things are either metaphorical or they're not - they usually aren't supposed to be taken half-metaphorical and half-literally.

2) We don't know what order things went down in, anyway.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So people who believe Genesis don't believe in science at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily, Shroeder (http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Gerald-Schroeder/dp/076790303X/ref=pd_bbs_3/105-9377583-6056400?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183941983&sr=8-3) apparently tries to mend the bible and science. I havent read the book but i have read some things about it and i believe he uses the general theory of reletivity to try and explain how 15 billion years could = 6000.

Most creationists i know use the whole "A day to God might be millions of years to us" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't account for the inaccurate order. A planet cannot have daylight unless it is under the orbit of a star, so it is logically impossible for light to have been "created" before the stars, as Genesis says. I'd like to hear Creationists explain what stars to God, or daylight to God, mean to us, mean to us. Or whatever other explanation they have for the puzzling order of Creation, other than the obvious one which is that the Bible is not the word of God, but rather of scientifically ignorant mortal men who thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I guess you would have expected a detailed dissertation that answered questions modern science has not even begun to answer?

Be realistic. A literal interpretation of Genesis (which I refuse to rule out, by the way) is not necessary in order for the Bible to fulfill it's claims about truth.

Modern scientific rigor =! truth.
Ultra-precision =! truth.

(Interestingly, you may notice that the order of appearance of earthly organisms is pretty accurate, though admittedly this could just be a coincidence.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he asked for any of that. Just for it to go in the right order.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) That requirement does not fit a metaphor. Typically, in literature, things are either metaphorical or they're not - they usually aren't supposed to be taken half-metaphorical and half-literally.

2) We don't know what order things went down in, anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually a hint that order is important is when the author uses words like "First" and "Then" and "On the third day" and so on.

We can be pretty sure that the order given in Genesis isn't correct, right?

The only reason I'm bothering with this is because you said something to the effect of "I don't necessarily accept Biblical literalism, but I don't rule it out." That seemed like a hilarious position, to me, so I'm trying to flesh it out a bit.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is it possible to defend the literal text of Genesis


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no interest in debating on this forum but if you would like some thoughts on Genesis from some very intelligent people (Hugh Ross, Ph.D., astronomy, Vern Poythress, several degrees in theology plus a Ph.D., math,Harvard), see this 1 hr. radio show:


<a href="pnm://broadcast.reasons.org/rtbradio/cu20040227.rm?start=01:00:47.3" target="_blank"> Vern</a>

[/ QUOTE ]

NR,

Clear your PM box.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason I'm bothering with this is because you said something to the effect of "I don't necessarily accept Biblical literalism, but I don't rule it out." That seemed like a hilarious position, to me, so I'm trying to flesh it out a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not claiming a complete understanding of everything in the universe is a hilarious position? In this forum, that might actually be true.

By saying I don't rule it out, I mean exactly what I said - I don't consider a 6000 year-old earth, etc., to be at all likely, given the evidence (and this is how I respond to hard-core YEC's), but there is hardly anything remotely approaching the standard of proof to the contrary, or if there is it is something I don't know about, and I have a science background, though not nearly as extensive as someone like Borodog.

God could have created the Earth instantaneously and made it composed entirely of jelly beans if he wanted to. I have no doubts about his ability to create in exactly the way Genesis describes, if that is the way in which He so desired.

So I won't rule it out, entirely.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
So people who believe Genesis don't believe in science at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

The "..at all" is not how they'd present it but it pretty much does come out that way. Essentially they use a hierarchal approach, like a flow chart -

Claim W -
Does it contradict genesis? -
- If No, continue with science. good stuff.
- If Yes, proceed to a version of "science wasn't there".

You'll see lots of it in this forum, even in this thread.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only reason I'm bothering with this is because you said something to the effect of "I don't necessarily accept Biblical literalism, but I don't rule it out." That seemed like a hilarious position, to me, so I'm trying to flesh it out a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not claiming a complete understanding of everything in the universe is a hilarious position? In this forum, that might actually be true.

By saying I don't rule it out, I mean exactly what I said - I don't consider a 6000 year-old earth, etc., to be at all likely, given the evidence (and this is how I respond to hard-core YEC's), but there is hardly anything remotely approaching the standard of proof to the contrary, or if there is it is something I don't know about, and I have a science background, though not nearly as extensive as someone like Borodog.

God could have created the Earth instantaneously and made it composed entirely of jelly beans if he wanted to. I have no doubts about his ability to create in exactly the way Genesis describes, if that is the way in which He so desired.

So I won't rule it out, entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean it pejoratively. Its just that biblical literalism tends to be an all-or-nothing position. It seems sort of hard to be on the fence with regards to a 6,000 year old earth. It seems like you meant "I won't rule it out" in the tongue-in-cheek, covering-all-my-bases atheist type of way, rather than what people usually mean. If thats the case, then thats of course reasonable. I don't rule it out either, just like I don't rule out unicorns or leprechauns.

You do make me a little nervous with the "hardly anything remotely approaching the standard of proof" comment. I'm not certain what 'standard of proof' you are looking for, since of course it is impossible to prove the Earth is NOT 6,000 years old (just as it is impossible to prove the world did not begin, say, Last Thursday) but your 'science background' didn't include anything on geology?

Edit: Oh, and by the way, if God really COULD have done that, then your 'science background' is entirely useless, and you needn't have wasted your time. If the universe isn't uniform (i.e. if God can intervene at will) then all of science is useless bunk.

[popeye18]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So people who believe Genesis don't believe in science at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

The "..at all" is not how they'd present it but it pretty much does come out that way. Essentially they use a hierarchal approach, like a flow chart -

Claim W -
Does it contradict genesis? -
- If No, continue with science. good stuff.
- If Yes, proceed to a version of "science wasn't there".

You'll see lots of it in this forum, even in this thread.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

There are some scientists who try to mend science and genesis together. Guys like Shroeder(who i have not read but plan to) and the mathmatecian from the radio interview notready linked(i listened and theres probably nothing most hear havent heard).

I would agree that many people who take the story of genesis literally follow the flow chart you created. Others i have noticed take genesis literally, learn and believe the science that cantradicts it, and believe both even though they cant go hand in hand.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
since of course it is impossible to prove the Earth is NOT 6,000 years old

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad you acknowledge this - many in this forum do not.

[ QUOTE ]
(just as it is impossible to prove the world did not begin, say, Last Thursday)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also true, but it clearly contradicts what you and I know to be reality from our experience. Not true of a 6000 year-old earth.

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: Oh, and by the way, if God really COULD have done that, then your 'science background' is entirely useless, and you needn't have wasted your time. If the universe isn't uniform (i.e. if God can intervene at will) then all of science is useless bunk.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it isn't. If it is uniform, and thus science is predictive, 99.99999% of the time, it's pretty valuable. I love science - as NR has said, the only reason for the perceived anti-intellectual bias among many believers is the fact that it is presented to them by people like Dawkins as science and religion being mutually exclusive, when this is quite obviously not the case to the (few) people who understand both.

For the universe to be anything BUT uniform (generally speaking) would be quite preposterous - it would be quite a curse for God to create a universe without the laws of physics.

[bills217]

Cessationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism) is a very mainstream Protestant belief, and holds that universe has been 100% uniform for quite some time now.

[bills217]

I should also add that, in my opinion, the single strongest argument for a God (thought not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God), is the amazing uniformity we see in the universe. We are a monumental underdog to be here as the result of undirected processes. I am planning an OP on this in the future.

A fine-tuned universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe)

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I should also add that, in my opinion, the single strongest argument for a God (thought not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God), is the amazing uniformity we see in the universe. We are a monumental underdog to be here as the result of undirected processes. I am planning an OP on this in the future.

A fine-tuned universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe)

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not amazing to find fish in water. Finding fish dancing on the surface of the moon ... that'd be neat.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I would agree that many people who take the story of genesis literally follow the flow chart you created. Others i have noticed take genesis literally, learn and believe the science that cantradicts it, and believe both even though they cant go hand in hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's test your version -
Hortense believes that the sum of two positive numbers is larger than either of them unless he doesn't like the answer.

That is the claim made by the "believe both" people you know.

They don't actually believe both, they believe genesis and go along with science ( since it has given them valuable and coherent answers) unless it contradicts genesis.

"My dad believes me unless mom contradicts me" is not 'believing both'.

luckyme

[popeye18]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would agree that many people who take the story of genesis literally follow the flow chart you created. Others i have noticed take genesis literally, learn and believe the science that cantradicts it, and believe both even though they cant go hand in hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's test your version -
Hortense believes that the sum of two positive numbers is larger than either of them unless he doesn't like the answer.

That is the claim made by the "believe both" people you know.

They don't actually believe both, they believe genesis and go along with science ( since it has given them valuable and coherent answers) unless it contradicts genesis.

"My dad believes me unless mom contradicts me" is not 'believing both'.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Friend: I believe that evolution most likely occured.

Me: I thought you believe that god literally put Adam and Eve on this earth.

Friend: I do

Me: How can both be true?

Friend: I dunno.(changes subject)

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Me: How can both be true?

Friend: I dunno.(changes subject)

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to lose all trust in that person at that point. Even if they have seemed decent enough. It's such an alien mind I don't know when it's rationality kicks in and out. Experience has shown it can happen at the most unexpected times, but obviously one persons interaction with any given type of person is very limited.

luckyme

[popeye18]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Me: How can both be true?

Friend: I dunno.(changes subject)

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to lose all trust in that person at that point. Even if they have seemed decent enough. It's such an alien mind I don't know when it's rationality kicks in and out. Experience has shown it can happen at the most unexpected times, but obviously one persons interaction with any given type of person is very limited.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Some probably dont believe in one or the other but dont want to admit it, to others or even themselves. Others I believe learn something like evolution and think hey yea that makes sense. All this evidence, i think this is probably true. Then they start realizing how it contradicts the bible. How could something they grew up knowing and their parents taught them, and believe in themselves, not be true. So they decide just not to think about it, still believeing in both.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
I should also add that, in my opinion, the single strongest argument for a God (thought not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God), is the amazing uniformity we see in the universe. We are a monumental underdog to be here as the result of undirected processes. I am planning an OP on this in the future.

A fine-tuned universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe)

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. But none of that changes the fact that it is moronic to think that there are good rational reasons to believe you know the specifics of those directed processes and the specifics of who or what is behind them.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But none of that changes the fact that it is moronic to think that there are good rational reasons


[/ QUOTE ]

1. God is a good God.
2. A good God would communicate with His creatures.
3. Therefore it is rational to believe in specifics.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But none of that changes the fact that it is moronic to think that there are good rational reasons


[/ QUOTE ]

1. God is a good God.
2. A good God would communicate with His creatures.
3. Therefore it is rational to believe in specifics.

[/ QUOTE ]

4. He is obviously a bad communicator! /images/graemlins/smile.gif
5. He is probably subject to other foibles too, and therefore a puny being, not worthy of worship.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
This is also true, but it clearly contradicts what you and I know to be reality from our experience. Not true of a 6000 year-old earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is. If things like carbon dating are completely bunk, and light reaching earth that set out more than 6000 years ago is also bunk, then I have absolutely no reason to believe that all of my experiences from last Wednesday and before are somehow real.

I cannot rightly place any premium on my personal experience. If some god can fool me by messing around with the universe on the whole as he sees fit, then he can surely flip a few neurons here and there to meddle with my memories.

Like, gravity could very well be localized to areas in which I'm visiting. It may not apply anywhere else in the universe. The only problem with that is that the planet would fall apart if it were so.

[rubberloon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So people who believe Genesis don't believe in science at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily, Shroeder (http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Gerald-Schroeder/dp/076790303X/ref=pd_bbs_3/105-9377583-6056400?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183941983&sr=8-3) apparently tries to mend the bible and science. I havent read the book but i have read some things about it and i believe he uses the general theory of reletivity to try and explain how 15 billion years could = 6000.

Most creationists i know use the whole "A day to God might be millions of years to us" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't account for the inaccurate order. A planet cannot have daylight unless it is under the orbit of a star, so it is logically impossible for light to have been "created" before the stars, as Genesis says. I'd like to hear Creationists explain what stars to God, or daylight to God, mean to us, mean to us. Or whatever other explanation they have for the puzzling order of Creation, other than the obvious one which is that the Bible is not the word of God, but rather of scientifically ignorant mortal men who thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

The big bang (energy/light) came first then stars. My wife who teaches science when asked says that the Genesis version got it roughly right, starting with the big bang, but it shouldn't be taken as a scientific text.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But none of that changes the fact that it is moronic to think that there are good rational reasons


[/ QUOTE ]

1. God is a good God.
2. A good God would communicate with His creatures.
3. Therefore it is rational to believe in specifics.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. why assume that?
2. IF "good", why would we think he would communicate?
3. therefore DS has a good point

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But none of that changes the fact that it is moronic to think that there are good rational reasons


[/ QUOTE ]

1. God is a good God.
2. A good God would communicate with His creatures.
3. Therefore it is rational to believe in specifics.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. why assume that?
2. IF "good", why would we think he would communicate?
3. therefore DS has a good point

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't spoil it, NotReady infering god's properties from his goodness! Miracles do happen!

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady infering god's properties from his goodness!


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm inferrng God's action from His nature.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NotReady infering god's properties from his goodness!


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm inferrng God's action from His nature.

[/ QUOTE ]
that's right his nature of being good. See it means something to you otherwise you wouldn't be able to infer actions from it.

chez

[bigpooch]

Literalists aren't interpreting text in according to Jewish
"custom" if you can take that to mean most Jewish rabbis,
including Yeshua bin Yosef (= Jesus son of Joseph),
commonly referred to as Jesus. In many instances, Yeshua
took the text of many passages in the Torah as literal, but
it should be clear to those have some "light" that the text
in the early chapters of Genesis should not be interpreted
literally. For example, the Garden of Eden exists, but it
is obviously not a garden on the earth.

I think it was Nachmanides (ca. 12th century CE) who not
only did not believe in the literal six days of creation,
but estimated the age of the physical cosmos as about 15
billion years old, which compares somewhat closely to the
latest scientific data (the latest estimate is between 13
and 14 billion years).

And about "light" being in existence before stars? Any
true believer can refer you to 1 John 1:5. God is light,
and in Him, there is no darkness at all. All this will be
clear when we've finished this life.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But none of that changes the fact that it is moronic to think that there are good rational reasons


[/ QUOTE ]

1. God is a good God.
2. A good God would communicate with His creatures.
3. Therefore it is rational to believe in specifics.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. why assume that?

[/ QUOTE ]
because if he weren't then i declare he wouldnt be God, because i know that God is good because God has communicated that fact to us. QED.

[ QUOTE ]

2. IF "good", why would we think he would communicate?

[/ QUOTE ]
because not communicating seems bad. LDO.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
And about "light" being in existence before stars? Any true believer can refer you to 1 John 1:5. God is light

[/ QUOTE ]

so when god said "let there be light," he was saying "let there be me" and so spoke himself into existence.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But none of that changes the fact that it is moronic to think that there are good rational reasons


[/ QUOTE ]

1. God is a good God.
2. A good God would communicate with His creatures.
3. Therefore it is rational to believe in specifics.

[/ QUOTE ]

i never thought you would actually admit to relying on an argument like that, but i knew it had to be down there somewhere.

[btmagnetw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NotReady infering god's properties from his goodness!


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm inferrng God's action from His nature.

[/ QUOTE ]and your knowledge of his nature is dervied from... his actions?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

and your knowledge of his nature is dervied from... his actions?


[/ QUOTE ]

It's a syllogism, a logical argument, designed to show that if the premises are true then believing specifics about God isn't moronic. I get the premises from Scripture. The argument is sound. You are free to dispute the premises.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

and your knowledge of his nature is dervied from... his actions?


[/ QUOTE ]

I get the premises from Scripture.

[/ QUOTE ]

"a good god would communicate with his creatures"

is from the book of hubris, chapter 1 vs. 1.

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is sound. You are free to dispute the premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

soundness means the premises are true, correct? so you're saying, "the premises are true, you are free to dispute the premises."

if you meant "the argument is valid," it's not anyway. it's definitely possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

if you meant "the argument is valid," it's not anyway. it's definitely possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.


[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, that's what I meant. Don't see how the conclusion could be invalid though.

[GoodCallYouWin]

[ QUOTE ]
So people who believe Genesis don't believe in science at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd have to ask them that. I just said it's impossible to defend those beliefs through the veil of science; this won't stop people from thinking they can do it.

[bigpooch]

You need the proper "light" to see what "light" is spoken of
in context: the text in 1 John 1:5 just indicates that
"light" already existed before the "light" created in
Genesis Chapter 1.

"God is spirit", but obviously a spirit may not necessarily
be God. "God is light", but obviously photons are not
divine.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
You need the proper "light" to see what "light" is spoken of
in context: the text in 1 John 1:5 just indicates that
"light" already existed before the "light" created in
Genesis Chapter 1.

"God is spirit", but obviously a spirit may not necessarily
be God. "God is light", but obviously photons are not
divine.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, so obviously when people say "light" did not exist before stars, they're NOT talking about "the sort of light that god is," they're talking about the physical light referenced in verse 3. the metaphor "god is light" has nothing to do with genesis 1.

the "light" spoken of, in context, is physical light. the chapter is about the creation of the physical universe. that's the context.

[bigpooch]

If people are talking about physical light when they say
that "light did not exist before stars", they are unaware
that God emanates light. They do not acknowledge or
recognize the true light that comes from God.

Technically, the "light" in Genesis 1:3 is from a geocentric
view in context of Genesis 1:2, so we couldn't deduce that
photons were created ex nihilo from that verse, but rather
that God gave "light" to the earth. The creation of the
physical (and spiritual) universe, from the context, is
only in the first verse. From verses two onward, the
context is geocentric, but also has spiritual meaning.

"God is light" is not only a metaphor, but a reality, so it
has much to do with Genesis 1. When we finish our earthly
existence, we'll know how bright the light that comes from
God is. Humans have light too, as spoken of in John 1:4.

Rev 21:22-27
---------------

22I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. 25On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. 27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

[Subfallen]

Catholics have known forever that there is no reason to interpret the Days of Creation as literal 24-hour periods. It really escapes me why anyone takes Protestants seriously on any issue, so I certainly don't see any value in debunking their particularly stupid insistence on Biblical literalism.

The really difficult parts of Genesis IMO are not related to creation but rather the historicity of a literal Fall combined with the extreme longevity of Adam and succeeding generations. As I've asked before, why did Moses need Divine Revelation in 1200BC to "remember" the story of Adam & Eve?

Why did the mythology of One Triune God walking with man vanish from oral tradition? Why are all early religions polytheistic with no doctrine resembling the Fall? WHAT HAPPENED?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

As I've asked before, why did Moses need Divine Revelation in 1200BC to "remember" the story of Adam & Eve?


[/ QUOTE ]

Where does it say that?

[ QUOTE ]

Why did the mythology of One Triune God walking with man vanish from oral tradition?


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Moses was recording oral tradition.

[ QUOTE ]

Why are all early religions polytheistic with no doctrine resembling the Fall?


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Genesis was just another version of a common creation story.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As I've asked before, why did Moses need Divine Revelation in 1200BC to "remember" the story of Adam & Eve?


[/ QUOTE ]

Where does it say that?

[/ QUOTE ]
All Scripture is purported to be divinely inspired, right?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why did the mythology of One Triune God walking with man vanish from oral tradition?


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Moses was recording oral tradition.

[/ QUOTE ]
AFAIK, apart from Zoroastrianism, Judaism was the first religion to 100% commit to a monotheistic mythology. Other cultures/religions were polytheistic; that is, oral tradition was massively variegated, and usually completely different from the Genesis mythology.

If all these cultures/people actually descended from a single pair of 900-year-old people who lived through the Fall (not so many years prior), why the huge diversity? Why did the "correct" mythology need to be recovered by appeal to divine inspiration? Why wasn't it common knowledge that what Moses set down was the true history of mankind?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why are all early religions polytheistic with no doctrine resembling the Fall?


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Genesis was just another version of a common creation story.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "another version" you mean "another completely arbitrary interpretation of reality", then yes, I agree. But according to Christianity it's actual history, right?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

All Scripture is purported to be divinely inspired, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

It is.

[ QUOTE ]

Why wasn't it common knowledge that what Moses set down was the true history of mankind?


[/ QUOTE ]

The Flood. The Tower of Babel. The effects of sin. The very long period of time since the Fall - possibly 30k to 40k years. Also, I believe much of it was known through mythology and other "creation" stories.

[ QUOTE ]

If by "another version" you mean "another completely arbitrary interpretation of reality", then yes, I agree. But according to Christianity it's actual history, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

Your question is why other religions of the time don't resemble Genesis. But a common objection to the Bible is that it's just another version, similar to many other creation stories. So which is it?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
If people are talking about physical light when they say
that "light did not exist before stars", they are unaware
that God emanates light.

[/ QUOTE ]

god does not emanate physical light.

[andyfox]

By "good" I assume you mean righteous rather than talented. But if he is also good-talented, he wouldn't have to communicate with his creatures, he'd leave them free to use their innate intelligence to figure things out themselves.

A smart god would also know that his intelligent creatures would resort to magic and charlatanism to gain power, so he wouldn't confuse the issue with unclear communication.

BTW, your PM box is full again.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But if he is also good-talented, he wouldn't have to communicate with his creatures, he'd leave them free to use their innate intelligence to figure things out themselves.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's valid up to a point. But if His creatures were in dire straits, making a mess out of figuring it out, and lacking the information necessary for salvation, He might decide to give us some help. Regardless, you do admit to the validity of the syllogism, but contest one of the premises, right? So at least it isn't irrational to think He would communicate.

[ QUOTE ]

A smart god would also know that his intelligent creatures would resort to magic and charlatanism to gain power, so he wouldn't confuse the issue with unclear communication.


[/ QUOTE ]

That which is genuinely important to know isn't unclear. And any number of reasons can be given for why the Bible is difficult, not the least of which the complete message is both complicated and long.

[ QUOTE ]

BTW, your PM box is full again.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, clear.

[andyfox]

Still can't PM you.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Still can't PM you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, done, sorry.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
The Flood. The Tower of Babel. The effects of sin. The very long period of time since the Fall - possibly 30k to 40k years. Also, I believe much of it was known through mythology and other "creation" stories.

[/ QUOTE ]
My whole contention is that none of these explanations are nearly satisfactory when one gives any literal credibility to the Genesis account. Remember, here we have a two humans who are in daily discourse with Omniscience Incarnate for some unspecified time pre-Fall.

During this period, Adam and Eve are (1) immortal; (2) in Paradise; (3) enjoying the fullness of spiritual consummation with God. Now---for unspecified reasons, Eve is dissatisfied with being everything she was created to be (a self-contradictory premise?), and decides to take the counsel of a talking snake over that of Almighty God.

This alone makes it nearly impossible to conceive of Eve as a literal person, but say we somehow accept the historicity of the account thus far. So Adam and Eve are banished from paradise (40k years ago, you say.) Afterwards Adam lives to be ~930 (Eve is apparently irrelevant.) And despite the benefit of being created with full-blown consciousness and a spoken language, Adam accomplishes exactly nothing. No written language, no inventing the wheel, not a damn thing indicative of super-simian intelligence.

It will mysteriously be 30k years before humans (with very abbreviated lifespans) accomplish any of these things. So despite living ~20x longer than the average Sumerian, and despite spending his formative years in the company of Omniscience, Adam is, relatively speaking, a chimp-caliber intelligence.

WHY? HOW DOES THAT POSSIBLY MAKE SENSE?

[ QUOTE ]
Your question is why other religions of the time don't resemble Genesis. But a common objection to the Bible is that it's just another version, similar to many other creation stories. So which is it?

[/ QUOTE ]
All mythologies are similar in that they are arbitrary interpretative artifices. I do not regard that commonality as an a priori objection to any specific mythology.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

WHY? HOW DOES THAT POSSIBLY MAKE SENSE?


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, pre-flood you have Genesis 6:

5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

...
11Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.

in addition to the other stuff I mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]

All mythologies are similar in that they are arbitrary interpretative artifices. I do not regard that commonality as an a priori objection to any specific mythology.


[/ QUOTE ]

You claim that Genesis doesn't resemble other creation stories and that this is a problem because it should if true. But others say Genesis is so like other creation stories that it's obviously as false as those others. So I can't really answer both objections. What I believe is that there is a similarity among most of the creation (and flood)stories because Genesis is true and what you are seeing are corrupted versions that have come down through oral tradition over a long period of time by means of highly different cultures speaking very different languages.

[Subfallen]

Since the Genesis creation account is not supposed to be literal, I don't see how it could be materially different from other mythologies. All creation mythologies are just variants of ex nihilo creation via an unspecified process over a unspecified amount of time. I don't see any real discussion to be had there.

The dominance of polytheism in early oral tradition, on the other hand, I do think seriously challenges the Genesis claim that human history was defined by our first parents' encounter with One God. Historical precedent shows that polytheism is less attractive than monotheism; as seen by the utter dominance of monotheism since the Jews invented it.

Thus there is no historical reason to believe that a monotheistic tradition firmly established by Adam would have succumbed to polytheistic competition. But polytheism definitely ruled the religious marketplace before Judaism's birth.

[ QUOTE ]


OK, pre-flood you have Genesis 6:

5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this explains Adam's utter failure to begin an archeologically visible society. Don't you think it's at the least incredibly bizarre that a civilization begun by several generations of people living to be 900+ accomplished absolutely NOTHING compared to the Sumerians, who probably rarely lived past 30?

Are you asking me to believe that Adam and his immediate descendants would qualify as mentally retarded by today's standards?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you asking me to believe that Adam and his immediate descendants would qualify as mentally retarded by today's standards?

[/ QUOTE ]

On second thought, maybe it should be obvious that you're expecting me to make this assumption. After all, I'm supposed to believe that Eve---living in all fullness of being---was just tooo tempted by a talking snake to give any heed to the only direct commandment of Incarnate God.

She and Adam were complete [censored] idiots, no doubt.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The dominance of polytheism in early oral tradition, on the other hand,I do think seriously challenges the Genesis claim that human history was defined by our first parents' encounter with One God. Historical precedent shows that polytheism is less attractive than monotheism; as seen by the utter dominance of monotheism since the Jews invented it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that Genesis claims to define the knowledge of human history. But I'm sure you're wrong about the preference of monotheism. One of the main reasons for Moses' including the first few chapters of Genesis was to counter the prevailing polytheistic religions. The Hebrews throughout their history were constantly lapsing into some form of polytheism. As far as I know, the only real monotheism ever described is in the Bible and copy cats such as the Koran and Book of Mormon.

[ QUOTE ]

Thus there is no historical reason to believe that a monotheistic tradition firmly established by Adam would have succumbed to polytheistic competition


[/ QUOTE ]

We don't really know what Adam, his progeny, and later Noah and his progeny, established. Given the fact that the first two humans had difficulty understanding and obeying one simple commandment, added to the fact that their understanding and will would be further affected by their sin, it isn't a stretch to think they may have gotten other religious matters wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

Are you asking me to believe that Adam and his immediate descendants would qualify as mentally retarded by today's standards?


[/ QUOTE ]

Modern man supposedly developed around 150k - 250kya, but didn't learn to write until 3500-5000 b.c. Seems we're stupid by any measure.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
She and Adam were complete [censored] idiots, no doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lucifer was the highest of Archangels-they never had a chance.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Modern man supposedly developed around 150k - 250kya, but didn't learn to write until 3500-5000 b.c. Seems we're stupid by any measure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken language had to evolve first. Dennett, in fact, has theorized that consciousness co-evolved with speech...so, clearly, before the rudiments of speech, we were definitely stupid. However, once you assume speech (as Genesis appears to), mankind is not stupid by any comprehensible metric of intelligence. So...unless you're saying that Adam couldn't speak, I don't see how this should assuage my incredulity that Adam could have begun a civilization 30k years before the Sumerians.

[ QUOTE ]
But I'm sure you're wrong about the preference of monotheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Monotheistic religions boast both the highest enrollment (Christianity) and fastest growth rate (Islam.) There's absolutely no question that monotheism is historically proven to be a more potent ideology than polytheism.

[ QUOTE ]

We don't really know what Adam, his progeny, and later Noah and his progeny, established.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't know with certainty. But based on all available historical and archeological evidence, Adam established zilch. And, once again, I believe this lack of accomplishment is so improbable that it practically refutes the Genesis assertion that human-equivalents lived millennium-long lives 40k years ago. Sure, a humanoid without a fully developed consciousness. But not a human-equivalent.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
She and Adam were complete [censored] idiots, no doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lucifer was the highest of Archangels-they never had a chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

So unity with God isn't appealing enough to turn down the Devil? Remind me again why I should be choosing Heaven over Hell if Satan is so overwhelmingly more interesting?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Spoken language had to evolve first.


[/ QUOTE ]

How long did that take? Could we speak by 50kya?

[ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this should assuage my incredulity that Adam could have begun a civilization 30k years before the Sumerians.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read my quotes from Genesis about all the violence. Also, the flood could easily have destroyed much of any civilization that had been built up.

[ QUOTE ]

Monotheistic religions boast both the highest enrollment (Christianity) and fastest growth rate (Islam.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking about Genesis. Monotheism didn't become popular until well after Christ, and arguably because of Christ.

[ QUOTE ]

Sure, a humanoid without a fully developed consciousness. But not a human-equivalent.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was talkng about h o m o sapiens sapiens which I think is considered modern man. Could be wrong, haven't really looked at the details of our species from an evolutionary perspective. I can speculate, though, that if we had the capacity for speech but had not developed it, we would also have the capacity for all other cultural pursuits. I just find it difficult to believe we were present in our current form 150-250kya but did nothing until 5-10kya. The late development of human culture indicates a late development of the human.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
So unity with God isn't appealing enough to turn down the Devil? Remind me again why I should be choosing Heaven over Hell if Satan is so overwhelmingly more interesting?


[/ QUOTE ]

"Overwhelmingly interesting"-a twisted turnip of a reply.Wouldn't it be much better for you to TRY to understand rather than respond with puerile retorts? No credence to anyone else? Fagitaboutit.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
How long did that [the evolution of speech] take? Could we speak by 50kya?


[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly there was a long continuum of evolving sophistication of both speech and consciousness. But my point is: because the first significant civilizations occurred at 10000BC, it is prohibitively unlikely that modern levels of intelligence/language were reached at 50000BC. This argues against the Christian theology that counts Adam and Eve as human-equivalents in terms of self-consciousness and relative intelligence.

Or---it gets better and better---am I actually supposed to believe that God's idea of justice is holding me eternally accountable because my half-chimp, half-zombie ancestor was lured into eating the wrong fruit by a malevolent, supernatural serpent?

[ QUOTE ]

Did you read my quotes from Genesis about all the violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes, we could just assume that basic human nature was purely destructive until some arbitrary point around 10000BC. But I don't see any justification for that when a far simpler explanation is that intelligence was just not sufficiently evolved for civilization any earlier.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the flood could easily have destroyed much of any civilization that had been built up.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are many fossils, etc. that are much, much older than the (purported) flood. I don't see how the flood explains anything...even if you do generously assume that it happened.

[ QUOTE ]

I was talkng about h o m o sapiens sapiens which I think is considered modern man. Could be wrong, haven't really looked at the details of our species from an evolutionary perspective. I can speculate, though, that if we had the capacity for speech but had not developed it, we would also have the capacity for all other cultural pursuits. I just find it difficult to believe we were present in our current form 150-250kya but did nothing until 5-10kya. The late development of human culture indicates a late development of the human.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly physiological equivalence is very different from psychological equivalence. Just because the anatomy of modern man stabilized 150k years back doesn't mean consciousness, etc. were evolved to modern levels.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So unity with God isn't appealing enough to turn down the Devil? Remind me again why I should be choosing Heaven over Hell if Satan is so overwhelmingly more interesting?


[/ QUOTE ]

"Overwhelmingly interesting"-a twisted turnip of a reply.Wouldn't it be much better for you to TRY to understand rather than respond with puerile retorts? No credence to anyone else? Fagitaboutit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? You told me that Eve's communion with God was, relatively speaking, a non-factor when weighed against the Tempter's charms. Isn't that just another way of saying that God is less interesting than Satan?

(BTW, I'm pretty sure your first post is highly unorthodox, as it effectively removes free will from mankind's fall.)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But my point is: because the first significant civilizations occurred at 10000BC, it is prohibitively unlikely that modern levels of intelligence/language were reached at 50000BC.


[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make much sense and is very speculative. Man, in his current modern form with current cranial capacity, evolved 150k-250k but didn't evolve intelligence after that until 10kya? Could be, but seems unlikely.

[ QUOTE ]

Or---it gets better and better---am I actually supposed to believe that God's idea of justice is holding me eternally accountable because my half-chimp, half-zombie ancestor was lured into eating the wrong fruit by a malevolent, supernatural serpent?


[/ QUOTE ]

No. You will be held eternally accountable because of your unbelief.

[ QUOTE ]

There are many fossils, etc. that are much, much older than the (purported) flood. I don't see how the flood explains anything...even if you do generously assume that it happened.


[/ QUOTE ]

Water destroys and buries stuff. And accounts of a flood are almost universal.

[ QUOTE ]

Clearly physiological equivalence is very different from psychological equivalence. Just because the anatomy of modern man stabilized 150k years back doesn't mean consciousness, etc. were evolved to modern levels.


[/ QUOTE ]

But anatomy must give some evidence of intellectual ability. If cranial capacity was essentially stable 150-250kya it seems incredible that he would only be able to write at 5kya.

[Subfallen]

Anyways, won't be online again for a few days, but I curious as to why carlo thinks the Fall was inevitable once Lucifer turned. Maybe I'll start a thread about that sometime.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
(BTW, I'm pretty sure your first post is highly unorthodox, as it effectively removes free will from mankind's fall.)

[/ QUOTE ]

No,its the beginning of free will, earned through the "knowledge of good and evil" during Man's journeys on the Earth. Prior to this Man was ensconced in the Godhead without the sense of "individual self". His work to the end of Earth time garners this knowledge as an "individual being" and as in the Revelation of John and reaches the "New Jerusalem" as a spiritual individuality.

"Free Will" is earned and in this each of us plays our part within the Christ Being who entered the hearts of men at his death on Golgotha.The "Resurrection" is the example to each man and in this we overcome death guided by Christ. In Christo Morimur.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make much sense and is very speculative. Man, in his current modern form with current cranial capacity, evolved 150k-250k but didn't evolve intelligence after that until 10kya? Could be, but seems unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution of consciousness is obv not fully understood, but it definitely seems to have made asymptotic progress...Baldwin effect and all that. Beyond that, I can't convince you if you seriously think that the archeological record is consistent with human-equivalents possessing 900 year life-spans starting at 50000BC.

[ QUOTE ]
No. You will be held eternally accountable because of your unbelief.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is---for my choice to disbelieve that I'm only mortal because my half-chimp, half-zombie ancestor was lured into eating the wrong fruit by a malevolent, supernatural serpent? God sure does sound super.

[ QUOTE ]
Water destroys and buries stuff. And accounts of a flood are almost universal.


[/ QUOTE ]
Water does not completely destroy and bury what you would logically expect a 40k-year-old human civilization to look like. You think if there was another flood that our 10k-year-old civilization would be completely destroyed? Um, no.

[ QUOTE ]


But anatomy must give some evidence of intellectual ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only evidence of maximal intellectual ability (e.g., worms don't have enough neurons to be smart); anatomy says nothing about minimum intellectual ability (e.g., mentally retarded humans.)

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(BTW, I'm pretty sure your first post is highly unorthodox, as it effectively removes free will from mankind's fall.)

[/ QUOTE ]

No,its the beginning of free will, earned through the "knowledge of good and evil" during Man's journeys on the Earth. Prior to this Man was ensconced in the Godhead without the sense of "individual self". His work to the end of Earth time garners this knowledge as an "individual being" and as in the Revelation of John and reaches the "New Jerusalem" as a spiritual individuality.

"Free Will" is earned and in this each of us plays our part within the Christ Being who entered the hearts of men at his death on Golgotha.The "Resurrection" is the example to each man and in this we overcome death guided by Christ. In Christo Morimur.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I've never heard any of that before, and it's definitely 100% unfalsifiable, so I can hardly argue with you. It's an interesting enough perspective though, so thx for sharing.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Beyond that, I can't convince you if you seriously think that the archeological record is consistent with human-equivalents possessing 900 year life-spans starting at 50000BC.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's much archeology for either creation or evolution scenarios if what you want is highly developed civilization. But it seems the same argument applies to both. Remember that when Adam was created there was no internet or Harvard. If modern man had to develop his abilities, so did man descended from Adam. And if you accept Adam you accept the situation ante-diluvian, the flood and the effects of Babel.

[ QUOTE ]

That is---for my choice to disbelieve that I'm only mortal because my half-chimp, half-zombie ancestor was lured into eating the wrong fruit by a malevolent, supernatural serpent? God sure does sound super.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. For you choice to reject the God of the universe Who died in your place to atone for your sin. And yes, He is.

[ QUOTE ]

Water does not completely destroy and bury what you would logically expect a 40k-year-old human civilization to look like. You think if there was another flood that our 10k-year-old civilization would be completely destroyed? Um, no.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't expect anything they did to equal our 10ky old civilization. Do you think a flood would have done much to what we know existed during Abraham's time?

[ QUOTE ]

only evidence of maximal intellectual ability


[/ QUOTE ]

Which leaves a lot of room for speculation, which hardly proves Genesis is false.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Which leaves a lot of room for speculation, which hardly proves Genesis is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, of course nothing could prove Genesis is false. I'm just throwing out various common-sense objections that I've never seen answered satisfactorily.

[ QUOTE ]
No. For you choice to reject the God of the universe Who died in your place to atone for your sin. And yes, He is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not actively rejecting anything---how can I be said to reject an offer I don't perceive to exist? Rather, I strongly empathize with an ecumenical treatment of Christianity and hope that, in the end, it somehow approximates the truth of reality.

Your treatment of Christianity...well, that's quite a different story. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I should also add that, in my opinion, the single strongest argument for a God (thought not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God), is the amazing uniformity we see in the universe. We are a monumental underdog to be here as the result of undirected processes. I am planning an OP on this in the future.

A fine-tuned universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe)

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. But none of that changes the fact that it is moronic to think that there are good rational reasons to believe you know the specifics of those directed processes and the specifics of who or what is behind them.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not fine.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
I should also add that, in my opinion, the single strongest argument for a God (thought not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God), is the amazing uniformity we see in the universe. We are a monumental underdog to be here as the result of undirected processes. I am planning an OP on this in the future.

A fine-tuned universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe)

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe there are billions and billions of failed universes that we don't know about? Could be lots of different explanations. Most of which our human brains probably would not understand.

The uniformity of our universe certainly points to "something else" going on, maybe even something god-like, but how this "something else" ends up being an omnipotent being who looks like us *and* cares about us *and* listens to our thoughts and prayers is beyond me. Hopefully you cover that leap of logic in your post.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe there are billions and billions of failed universes that we don't know about? Could be lots of different explanations. Most of which our human brains probably would not understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, maybe. Maybe Atlas holds up the Earth, or maybe the universe is the dung of a giant turtle.

But that's pure mythology, and has no basis in science.

[ QUOTE ]
The uniformity of our universe certainly points to "something else" going on, maybe even something god-like, but how this "something else" ends up being an omnipotent being who looks like us *and* cares about us *and* listens to our thoughts and prayers is beyond me. Hopefully you cover that leap of logic in your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I make no such leap of logic. I readily admitted it did not even point specifically to the Judeo-Christian god.

There is plenty of other evidence that does, however. Enough that you have no excuse for not believing (not my claim, the Bible's claim).

To begin, I'd recommend "New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell, "The Case for Christ" (and related books) by Lee Strobel, and this link (http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm), which addresses the reliability of the New Testament documents. See - you don't even have to buy anything.

Of course, that claim was present in the Bible long before any of those materials were available, so I do not mean to imply they are necessary or required - just pointing you in the right direction.

If you have specific questions regarding any of those issues, I would do my best to answer them - you will forgive me for not making a complete 100,000,000-word exposition in this space.