Total Posts:90|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Genesis1

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 7:28:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Even some reasonable scientists admit that this, read properly, is an accurate, if limited, description of the formation of the universe and the order in which science shows things happened.

Many people deliberately misread it because they don;t want to accept what it actually proves beyond doubt.

Genesis 1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The heavens and the earth can only reasonably include the sun, moon and all the rest of the universe.

2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The narrative has now switched from a simple statement to a description of things happening as seen from the earth. This simply describes the atmosphere clearing enough for light to reach the earth, also showing that the sun had already been created.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

The word "heaven" is here used to describe the atmosphere around the earth, and the division of the waters above and below that heavens is the water mantle, presumably in the form of vapour, which was created and spread around the earth to protect it from radiation and give a "greenhouse effect". These are the source of the flood waters.

To use any other meaning of the word "day" than "an unspecified but definite period of time" in this account is unreasonable in the extreme, especially because the 7th "day" unlike the 6 "days" before it, has never been brought to an end. Such use simply reveals an intention to disbelieve whatever the truth of it may be.

Interestingly an article in "Astro-biology" Magazine, a NASA publication claimed that there was evidence of a gas layer around the earth at some point in the past, and that it appeared to be re-forming. That gas layer could easily have been the water mantle

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

It is well known that originally there was only one major land mass on the planet. It's division is mentioned at Genesis 10:25, as being after the time of the flood)

11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:

Some try to claim that this indicates that the sun and moon were created at this point, a complete impossibility since their creation is related in verse 1. It is a deliberate mistranslation in some editions of scripture. Again their insistence n this false understanding only serves to show their stubborn refusal to accept what they do not want to believe, true or not.

15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. 20 And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth. 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food: 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Please note that nowhere does it describe God as creating every single variety of animal we see today. They were simply created "after their kind" with no indication as to what those kinds were and how many of them.

This is partly confirmed by the fact that there was room for them all in the Ark.

True, there is no mention of dinosaurs, possibly because they were never intended to affect mankind so God saw no reason to include them. I sometimes wonder if they were not in fact nothing more than semi autonomous fertiliser producing "machines". We may never know if that is true or just my guess.

The point of this topic is simple.

Genesis 1 contains information only confirmed in modern times, and therefore, for the writers to have such knowledge they must have got it from the creator himself. There really is no way that those who some describe, wrongly as "ignorant goatherds" could have known so much about what there had been no human witnesses to.

Also, no other holy book has anything like as accurate version of creation.

If you cannot accept Genesis 1, read as it should be, as absolute evidence of God's existence as our creator, and as the mind behind the Bible, nothing will ever convince you. Therefore it is your choice, your loss. You may never know, what you are missing out on, unless the "torment" that scripture speaks of such as you unbelievers suffering before your destruction is the absolute realisation of exactly what you have thrown away, as Adam did.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 7:31:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
No real scientist, or any sensible thinking person, would believe the Biblical account of creation to have any veracity!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 8:08:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 7:31:53 AM, JJ50 wrote:
No real scientist, or any sensible thinking person, would believe the Biblical account of creation to have any veracity!

Not unless they actually read it, no, lol. science confirms it, whether or not you wish to believe it.

Your choice, your loss.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 8:42:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 8:08:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 7:31:53 AM, JJ50 wrote:
No real scientist, or any sensible thinking person, would believe the Biblical account of creation to have any veracity!

Not unless they actually read it, no, lol. science confirms it, whether or not you wish to believe it.

Your choice, your loss.

You are such a liar!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 9:00:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 8:08:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 7:31:53 AM, JJ50 wrote:
No real scientist, or any sensible thinking person, would believe the Biblical account of creation to have any veracity!

Not unless they actually read it, no, lol. science confirms it, whether or not you wish to believe it.

Your choice, your loss.

I think it is a poetic description of creation. But you are right it is surprisingly accurate on many accounts.

Hugh Ross back till the first century jewish rabbis clearly accepted the account as illustrative and accurate.

I may disagree with a few details of the interpretation but generally genesis 1 is complimentary to scientific discoveries i would agree with that
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 9:13:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 8:42:31 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 3/16/2015 8:08:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 7:31:53 AM, JJ50 wrote:
No real scientist, or any sensible thinking person, would believe the Biblical account of creation to have any veracity!

Not unless they actually read it, no, lol. science confirms it, whether or not you wish to believe it.

Your choice, your loss.

You are such a liar!

Not in the least
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 9:18:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 9:00:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/16/2015 8:08:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 7:31:53 AM, JJ50 wrote:
No real scientist, or any sensible thinking person, would believe the Biblical account of creation to have any veracity!

Not unless they actually read it, no, lol. science confirms it, whether or not you wish to believe it.

Your choice, your loss.

I think it is a poetic description of creation. But you are right it is surprisingly accurate on many accounts.

Hugh Ross back till the first century jewish rabbis clearly accepted the account as illustrative and accurate.

I may disagree with a few details of the interpretation but generally genesis 1 is complimentary to scientific discoveries i would agree with that

I'm not sure that I can see it as poetic, simply not very detailed at all. It tells us what we need to know, nothing more.

It certainly tells us far more than anyone back then could possibly have known without guidance from the Creator. It is the truth, and nothing but the truth. Simply not the whole truth.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 10:02:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 9:33:51 AM, JJ50 wrote:
More garbage from someone who lives in LA LA land!

No, more truth from a subject of God's Kingdom.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 2:12:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

Genesis 1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


The heavens and the earth can only reasonably include the sun, moon and all the rest of the universe.

I will remember your interpretation of "heavens" here.


6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

The word "heaven" is here used to describe the atmosphere around the earth,

Wait a minute! You said "heavens" was referring to the sun, moon, and the rest of the universe! I am seeing some consistency problems already.

To use any other meaning of the word "day" than "an unspecified but definite period of time" in this account is unreasonable in the extreme, especially because the 7th "day" unlike the 6 "days" before it, has never been brought to an end. Such use simply reveals an intention to disbelieve whatever the truth of it may be.

It makes no difference to me either way. If the sun was not allowed to shine on the Earth until day 4 (verse 15), or "unspecified but definite period of time" #4, then the Earth cannot bring forth grass or trees their fruit (verse 11) -at least not without magic.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:

15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. 20 And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth. 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food: 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Please note that nowhere does it describe God as creating every single variety of animal we see today. They were simply created "after their kind" with no indication as to what those kinds were and how many of them.

This is partly confirmed by the fact that there was room for them all in the Ark.

No, it is not confirmed at all by the Ark. We cannot verify that the Ark ever existed.

True, there is no mention of dinosaurs, possibly because they were never intended to affect mankind so God saw no reason to include them. I sometimes wonder if they were not in fact nothing more than semi autonomous fertiliser producing "machines". We may never know if that is true or just my guess.

I think we can safely say that is your guess, unless you mean something different than I envision for "semi autonomous".
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 2:37:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 2:12:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Genesis 1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


The heavens and the earth can only reasonably include the sun, moon and all the rest of the universe.

I will remember your interpretation of "heavens" here.


6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

The word "heaven" is here used to describe the atmosphere around the earth,

Wait a minute! You said "heavens" was referring to the sun, moon, and the rest of the universe! I am seeing some consistency problems already.

To use any other meaning of the word "day" than "an unspecified but definite period of time" in this account is unreasonable in the extreme, especially because the 7th "day" unlike the 6 "days" before it, has never been brought to an end. Such use simply reveals an intention to disbelieve whatever the truth of it may be.

It makes no difference to me either way. If the sun was not allowed to shine on the Earth until day 4 (verse 15), or "unspecified but definite period of time" #4, then the Earth cannot bring forth grass or trees their fruit (verse 11) -at least not without magic.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:

15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. 20 And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth. 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food: 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Please note that nowhere does it describe God as creating every single variety of animal we see today. They were simply created "after their kind" with no indication as to what those kinds were and how many of them.

This is partly confirmed by the fact that there was room for them all in the Ark.

No, it is not confirmed at all by the Ark. We cannot verify that the Ark ever existed.

OK maybe I could have worded that better, but the thought of a lot less creatures does add to the feasibility of getting them all in the Ark.


True, there is no mention of dinosaurs, possibly because they were never intended to affect mankind so God saw no reason to include them. I sometimes wonder if they were not in fact nothing more than semi autonomous fertiliser producing "machines". We may never know if that is true or just my guess.

I think we can safely say that is your guess, unless you mean something different than I envision for "semi autonomous".

Oh it is definitely a guess, the only question is, how accurate, if at all.

Ok I'll try and explain what I mean.

We humans mainly are autonomous machines with a certain amount of dependency built in.

Animals are semi-autonomous in that they have slightly less free will and are dominated more by instinct. Some are more instinct dominated than others.

Does that explain what I mean?
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 2:40:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 7:28:29 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Even some reasonable scientists admit that this, read properly, is an accurate, if limited, description of the formation of the universe and the order in which science shows things happened.

Many people deliberately misread it because they don;t want to accept what it actually proves beyond doubt.

Genesis 1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

A refresher on creation: http://christiananswers.net...

Day one:
1. Watery, formless planet Earth suspended in the darkness and the void of space (no sun or any other stars, no moon, no planets yet existed"except for Earth).

2. Light

3. Separation of light from the darkness, and the first indication that the planet is rotating (day and night cycle produced).

Day two:

4. Formation of Earth"s atmosphere, separating the water into two parts:
(a) oceanic and subterranean water
(b) atmospheric water.

---

How can water exist on Earth when there is no atmosphere?

The heavens and the earth can only reasonably include the sun, moon and all the rest of the universe.

So light came into existence when God created the heavens.

2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

If light was already created, why is the Earth in darkness?

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The narrative has now switched from a simple statement to a description of things happening as seen from the earth. This simply describes the atmosphere clearing enough for light to reach the earth, also showing that the sun had already been created.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

The word "heaven" is here used to describe the atmosphere around the earth, and the division of the waters above and below that heavens is the water mantle, presumably in the form of vapour, which was created and spread around the earth to protect it from radiation and give a "greenhouse effect". These are the source of the flood waters.

To use any other meaning of the word "day" than "an unspecified but definite period of time" in this account is unreasonable in the extreme, especially because the 7th "day" unlike the 6 "days" before it, has never been brought to an end. Such use simply reveals an intention to disbelieve whatever the truth of it may be.

Interestingly an article in "Astro-biology" Magazine, a NASA publication claimed that there was evidence of a gas layer around the earth at some point in the past, and that it appeared to be re-forming. That gas layer could easily have been the water mantle

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

It is well known that originally there was only one major land mass on the planet. It's division is mentioned at Genesis 10:25, as being after the time of the flood)

11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:

[taken out due to character limitations]

Before the 'fall', was there death in the garden of Eden?
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 3:26:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 2:40:45 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/16/2015 7:28:29 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Even some reasonable scientists admit that this, read properly, is an accurate, if limited, description of the formation of the universe and the order in which science shows things happened.

Many people deliberately misread it because they don;t want to accept what it actually proves beyond doubt.

Genesis 1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


A refresher on creation: http://christiananswers.net...

Day one:
1. Watery, formless planet Earth suspended in the darkness and the void of space (no sun or any other stars, no moon, no planets yet existed"except for Earth).

2. Light

3. Separation of light from the darkness, and the first indication that the planet is rotating (day and night cycle produced).

Day two:

4. Formation of Earth"s atmosphere, separating the water into two parts:
(a) oceanic and subterranean water
(b) atmospheric water.

---

How can water exist on Earth when there is no atmosphere?

The heavens and the earth can only reasonably include the sun, moon and all the rest of the universe.

So light came into existence when God created the heavens.

2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

If light was already created, why is the Earth in darkness?


4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The narrative has now switched from a simple statement to a description of things happening as seen from the earth. This simply describes the atmosphere clearing enough for light to reach the earth, also showing that the sun had already been created.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

The word "heaven" is here used to describe the atmosphere around the earth, and the division of the waters above and below that heavens is the water mantle, presumably in the form of vapour, which was created and spread around the earth to protect it from radiation and give a "greenhouse effect". These are the source of the flood waters.

To use any other meaning of the word "day" than "an unspecified but definite period of time" in this account is unreasonable in the extreme, especially because the 7th "day" unlike the 6 "days" before it, has never been brought to an end. Such use simply reveals an intention to disbelieve whatever the truth of it may be.

Interestingly an article in "Astro-biology" Magazine, a NASA publication claimed that there was evidence of a gas layer around the earth at some point in the past, and that it appeared to be re-forming. That gas layer could easily have been the water mantle

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

It is well known that originally there was only one major land mass on the planet. It's division is mentioned at Genesis 10:25, as being after the time of the flood)

11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:

[taken out due to character limitations]


Before the 'fall', was there death in the garden of Eden?

There was always the prospect of death for any who disobeyed, and that will always be the case, but it was not death as we know it now, with a resurrection in view, but the permanent death which scripture now calls the "second death" which carries no hope of resurrection.

Since Jehovah told Adam that if he was unfaithful he would die it is safe to assume that the animals have always lived and died, so that Adam would know what Jehovah was referring to.

The simple truth is, however, that had Adam remained faithful he, and his descendants, would still be alive now, but of course that would be a completely different set of decendants. None of us, from Cain and Abel on would have been born.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 3:31:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 3:26:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 2:40:45 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/16/2015 7:28:29 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Even some reasonable scientists admit that this, read properly, is an accurate, if limited, description of the formation of the universe and the order in which science shows things happened.

Many people deliberately misread it because they don;t want to accept what it actually proves beyond doubt.

Genesis 1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


A refresher on creation: http://christiananswers.net...

Day one:
1. Watery, formless planet Earth suspended in the darkness and the void of space (no sun or any other stars, no moon, no planets yet existed"except for Earth).

2. Light

3. Separation of light from the darkness, and the first indication that the planet is rotating (day and night cycle produced).

Day two:

4. Formation of Earth"s atmosphere, separating the water into two parts:
(a) oceanic and subterranean water
(b) atmospheric water.

---

How can water exist on Earth when there is no atmosphere?

The heavens and the earth can only reasonably include the sun, moon and all the rest of the universe.

So light came into existence when God created the heavens.

2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

If light was already created, why is the Earth in darkness?


4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The narrative has now switched from a simple statement to a description of things happening as seen from the earth. This simply describes the atmosphere clearing enough for light to reach the earth, also showing that the sun had already been created.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

The word "heaven" is here used to describe the atmosphere around the earth, and the division of the waters above and below that heavens is the water mantle, presumably in the form of vapour, which was created and spread around the earth to protect it from radiation and give a "greenhouse effect". These are the source of the flood waters.

To use any other meaning of the word "day" than "an unspecified but definite period of time" in this account is unreasonable in the extreme, especially because the 7th "day" unlike the 6 "days" before it, has never been brought to an end. Such use simply reveals an intention to disbelieve whatever the truth of it may be.

Interestingly an article in "Astro-biology" Magazine, a NASA publication claimed that there was evidence of a gas layer around the earth at some point in the past, and that it appeared to be re-forming. That gas layer could easily have been the water mantle

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

It is well known that originally there was only one major land mass on the planet. It's division is mentioned at Genesis 10:25, as being after the time of the flood)

11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:

[taken out due to character limitations]


Before the 'fall', was there death in the garden of Eden?

There was always the prospect of death for any who disobeyed, and that will always be the case, but it was not death as we know it now, with a resurrection in view, but the permanent death which scripture now calls the "second death" which carries no hope of resurrection.

What about the death of plants and animals?

Since Jehovah told Adam that if he was unfaithful he would die it is safe to assume that the animals have always lived and died, so that Adam would know what Jehovah was referring to.

The simple truth is, however, that had Adam remained faithful he, and his descendants, would still be alive now, but of course that would be a completely different set of decendants. None of us, from Cain and Abel on would have been born.

No word on the following? http://christiananswers.net...
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 3:41:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 7:28:29 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Even some reasonable scientists admit that this, read properly, is an accurate, if limited, description of the formation of the universe and the order in which science shows things happened.

Many people deliberately misread it because they don;t want to accept what it actually proves beyond doubt.

Genesis 1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The heavens and the earth can only reasonably include the sun, moon and all the rest of the universe.

2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The narrative has now switched from a simple statement to a description of things happening as seen from the earth. This simply describes the atmosphere clearing enough for light to reach the earth, also showing that the sun had already been created.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

The word "heaven" is here used to describe the atmosphere around the earth, and the division of the waters above and below that heavens is the water mantle, presumably in the form of vapour, which was created and spread around the earth to protect it from radiation and give a "greenhouse effect". These are the source of the flood waters.

To use any other meaning of the word "day" than "an unspecified but definite period of time" in this account is unreasonable in the extreme, especially because the 7th "day" unlike the 6 "days" before it, has never been brought to an end. Such use simply reveals an intention to disbelieve whatever the truth of it may be.

Interestingly an article in "Astro-biology" Magazine, a NASA publication claimed that there was evidence of a gas layer around the earth at some point in the past, and that it appeared to be re-forming. That gas layer could easily have been the water mantle

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

It is well known that originally there was only one major land mass on the planet. It's division is mentioned at Genesis 10:25, as being after the time of the flood)

11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:

Some try to claim that this indicates that the sun and moon were created at this point, a
The point of this topic is simple.

Genesis 1 contains information only confirmed in modern times, and therefore, for the writers to have such knowledge they must have got it from the creator himself. There really is no way that those who some describe, wrongly as "ignorant goatherds" could have known so much about what there had been no human witnesses to.

Also, no other holy book has anything like as accurate version of creation.

If you cannot accept Genesis 1, read as it should be, as absolute evidence of God's existence as our creator, and as the mind behind the Bible, nothing will ever convince you. Therefore it is your choice, your loss. You may never know, what you are missing out on, unless the "torment" that scripture speaks of such as you unbelievers suffering before your destruction is the absolute realisation of exactly what you have thrown away, as Adam did.

No scientist or religious person knows how our Creator created everything and formed visible objects from His creation.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 4:02:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 3:31:39 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/16/2015 3:26:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

There was always the prospect of death for any who disobeyed, and that will always be the case, but it was not death as we know it now, with a resurrection in view, but the permanent death which scripture now calls the "second death" which carries no hope of resurrection.

What about the death of plants and animals?

Ironically I covered animals in the next paragraph, but it is safe to say the same applied to plants also.


Since Jehovah told Adam that if he was unfaithful he would die it is safe to assume that the animals have always lived and died, so that Adam would know what Jehovah was referring to.

The simple truth is, however, that had Adam remained faithful he, and his descendants, would still be alive now, but of course that would be a completely different set of decendants. None of us, from Cain and Abel on would have been born.

No word on the following? http://christiananswers.net...

You mean apart from the fact that it bears no relationship to the account it pretends to describe?

No, no more comment than that, it is so obviously false it doesn't warrant a response.

However if you have trouble working out where that Satanically inspired, pathetic attempt at mis-describing scripture is wrong I shall happily explain it again.

However the OP should leave you in no doubt.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 4:03:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 4:02:00 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 3:31:39 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/16/2015 3:26:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

There was always the prospect of death for any who disobeyed, and that will always be the case, but it was not death as we know it now, with a resurrection in view, but the permanent death which scripture now calls the "second death" which carries no hope of resurrection.

What about the death of plants and animals?

Ironically I covered animals in the next paragraph, but it is safe to say the same applied to plants also.


Since Jehovah told Adam that if he was unfaithful he would die it is safe to assume that the animals have always lived and died, so that Adam would know what Jehovah was referring to.

The simple truth is, however, that had Adam remained faithful he, and his descendants, would still be alive now, but of course that would be a completely different set of decendants. None of us, from Cain and Abel on would have been born.

No word on the following? http://christiananswers.net...

You mean apart from the fact that it bears no relationship to the account it pretends to describe?

No, no more comment than that, it is so obviously false it doesn't warrant a response.

However if you have trouble working out where that Satanically inspired, pathetic attempt at mis-describing scripture is wrong I shall happily explain it again.


How is it Satanically inspired?

However the OP should leave you in no doubt.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 4:21:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 4:03:45 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/16/2015 4:02:00 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 3:31:39 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/16/2015 3:26:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

There was always the prospect of death for any who disobeyed, and that will always be the case, but it was not death as we know it now, with a resurrection in view, but the permanent death which scripture now calls the "second death" which carries no hope of resurrection.

What about the death of plants and animals?

Ironically I covered animals in the next paragraph, but it is safe to say the same applied to plants also.


Since Jehovah told Adam that if he was unfaithful he would die it is safe to assume that the animals have always lived and died, so that Adam would know what Jehovah was referring to.

The simple truth is, however, that had Adam remained faithful he, and his descendants, would still be alive now, but of course that would be a completely different set of decendants. None of us, from Cain and Abel on would have been born.

No word on the following? http://christiananswers.net...

You mean apart from the fact that it bears no relationship to the account it pretends to describe?

No, no more comment than that, it is so obviously false it doesn't warrant a response.

However if you have trouble working out where that Satanically inspired, pathetic attempt at mis-describing scripture is wrong I shall happily explain it again.


How is it Satanically inspired?

However the OP should leave you in no doubt.

Satan can inspire thoughts the same way that God can, though not with the same power, because like God he is a spirit being.

Hence scripture tells us to check all teachings.

That is how and why Satan influences to one degree or another the vast majority of people on this earth, especially the education system which moulds the way we think, if we let it.

Hence also we are told that Satan can Blind us to truth.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4
ASV(i) 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: 4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.

That is why, no matter how often people like me point out the evidence for God's existence, most people will not see it, because they have not broken free of Stan's grip.

That is also why Jesus said, as recorded at John 8:31-32
ASV(i) 31 Jesus therefore said to those Jews that had believed him, If ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples; 32 and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

free from what? from Satan's deceptions
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 4:27:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 10:02:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 9:33:51 AM, JJ50 wrote:
More garbage from someone who lives in LA LA land!

No, more truth from a subject of God's Kingdom.

Indeed. You know, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

MCB: If you don't believe Jesus is actually Gabriel, you will suffer and be tortured.

........ Ok.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 4:55:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 4:27:47 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/16/2015 10:02:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 9:33:51 AM, JJ50 wrote:
More garbage from someone who lives in LA LA land!

No, more truth from a subject of God's Kingdom.

Indeed. You know, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

MCB: If you don't believe Jesus is actually Gabriel, you will suffer and be tortured.

........ Ok.

No I don't. I believe Michael is a much more likely choice.

However, we are only Brothers in Christ if we worship the God he worshipped, teach what he taught, and do our best to live as he did (for others, not for ourselves).
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 5:05:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 4:55:13 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 4:27:47 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/16/2015 10:02:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 9:33:51 AM, JJ50 wrote:
More garbage from someone who lives in LA LA land!

No, more truth from a subject of God's Kingdom.

Indeed. You know, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

MCB: If you don't believe Jesus is actually Gabriel, you will suffer and be tortured.

........ Ok.

No I don't. I believe Michael is a much more likely choice.

However, we are only Brothers in Christ if we worship the God he worshipped, teach what he taught, and do our best to live as he did (for others, not for ourselves).

I'm taking a guess you don't believe in the trinity?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 5:15:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 5:05:08 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/16/2015 4:55:13 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 4:27:47 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/16/2015 10:02:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 9:33:51 AM, JJ50 wrote:
More garbage from someone who lives in LA LA land!

No, more truth from a subject of God's Kingdom.

Indeed. You know, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

MCB: If you don't believe Jesus is actually Gabriel, you will suffer and be tortured.

........ Ok.

No I don't. I believe Michael is a much more likely choice.

However, we are only Brothers in Christ if we worship the God he worshipped, teach what he taught, and do our best to live as he did (for others, not for ourselves).

I'm taking a guess you don't believe in the trinity?

Since it is a completely unscriptural concept introduced into the church in the 4th century, you have guessed correctly.

I believe only in what Christ and the Apostles taught, and they did not teach anything remotely Trinitarian.

However it is possible to prove that the Trinity is false, even in translations which have been deliberately mistranslated to try and support it.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 5:20:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 7:28:29 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Even some reasonable scientists admit that this, read properly, is an accurate, if limited, description of the formation of the universe and the order in which science shows things happened.

Many people deliberately misread it because they don;t want to accept what it actually proves beyond doubt.

Therefore it is your choice, your loss. You may never know, what you are missing out on, unless the "torment" that scripture speaks of such as you unbelievers suffering before your destruction is the absolute realisation of exactly what you have thrown away, as Adam did.

At 3/16/2015 9:00:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

I think it is a poetic description of creation. But you are right it is surprisingly accurate on many accounts.

Hugh Ross back till the first century jewish rabbis clearly accepted the account as illustrative and accurate.

I may disagree with a few details of the interpretation but generally genesis 1 is complimentary to scientific discoveries i would agree with that

The scientifically illiterate have no idea what a reasonable scientist says considering they would never bother taking the time to find out. If they did take the time, they might even learn something, heaven forbid but would surely say a prayer to make it all go away, as learning is the work of Satan, the boogeyman.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 5:34:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 5:15:40 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 5:05:08 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/16/2015 4:55:13 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 4:27:47 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/16/2015 10:02:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 9:33:51 AM, JJ50 wrote:
More garbage from someone who lives in LA LA land!

No, more truth from a subject of God's Kingdom.

Indeed. You know, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

MCB: If you don't believe Jesus is actually Gabriel, you will suffer and be tortured.

........ Ok.

No I don't. I believe Michael is a much more likely choice.

However, we are only Brothers in Christ if we worship the God he worshipped, teach what he taught, and do our best to live as he did (for others, not for ourselves).

I'm taking a guess you don't believe in the trinity?

Since it is a completely unscriptural concept introduced into the church in the 4th century, you have guessed correctly.

I believe only in what Christ and the Apostles taught, and they did not teach anything remotely Trinitarian.

However it is possible to prove that the Trinity is false, even in translations which have been deliberately mistranslated to try and support it.

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

Refute these and convince me.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 5:50:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 5:20:13 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/16/2015 7:28:29 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Even some reasonable scientists admit that this, read properly, is an accurate, if limited, description of the formation of the universe and the order in which science shows things happened.

Many people deliberately misread it because they don;t want to accept what it actually proves beyond doubt.

Therefore it is your choice, your loss. You may never know, what you are missing out on, unless the "torment" that scripture speaks of such as you unbelievers suffering before your destruction is the absolute realisation of exactly what you have thrown away, as Adam did.

At 3/16/2015 9:00:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

I think it is a poetic description of creation. But you are right it is surprisingly accurate on many accounts.

Hugh Ross back till the first century Jewish rabbis clearly accepted the account as illustrative and accurate.

I may disagree with a few details of the interpretation but generally genesis 1 is complimentary to scientific discoveries i would agree with that

The scientifically illiterate have no idea what a reasonable scientist says considering they would never bother taking the time to find out. If they did take the time, they might even learn something, heaven forbid but would surely say a prayer to make it all go away, as learning is the work of Satan, the boogeyman.

There are a lot of theist who are scientist. I would say they are quite scientifically literate. Some even openly advocate genesis as a complimentary to science, even if allegorical account. Such as Hugh Ross who is an astronomer.

Second if you read the earliest interpretations of Genesis by Jewish Rabbis you find they did not take it as literal 7 days. They also proposed many other things that sound like what science is advocating. This was in the 50A.D. of the 1st century. So they didn't interpret Genesis to comply with scientific pressure. They actually did so through using other parts oft he torah and letting scripture interpret scripture.

Also as a departure from earlier philosophies it was St. Augustine in 400a.d. who proposed Time and Material world were created at the same time by God. Not to mention he proposed that past, present and future all exist equally right now. Book 11. This wasn't proposed by a Christian Theist to conform to General Relativity. He arrived at it by thought and scriptural analysis.

Christians and Jews were claiming a beginning to the universe long before Science got a finite universe right in mid 1900's.

The idea that the Universe is Rational and to some extent Comprehensible is an assumption still underlining Scientific investigation and can be wholly attributed to Theist thinking that the universe was created by an omniscient God.

Despite just the accuracy of Theist thought and scripture you also have to address the historical roots of modern science being planted and fed by religious institutions. The Catholic Church preserved much history, artifacts and knowledge from before the Dark ages to be re-investigated in later ages. Also the great contribution to Math and Astronomy from Muslims.

There is no conflict between science and religion. They are apples and oranges in a lot of respect, but agree more than you think or I suspect more than you have been told.

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] http://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org...
[3] http://archive.org...
[4] http://www.sacred-texts.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

I usually avoid your posts, but I thought with so much out there for you to read yourself, this might actually be a real chance for you to be educated.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 6:16:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 5:50:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/16/2015 5:20:13 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/16/2015 7:28:29 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Even some reasonable scientists admit that this, read properly, is an accurate, if limited, description of the formation of the universe and the order in which science shows things happened.

Many people deliberately misread it because they don;t want to accept what it actually proves beyond doubt.

Therefore it is your choice, your loss. You may never know, what you are missing out on, unless the "torment" that scripture speaks of such as you unbelievers suffering before your destruction is the absolute realisation of exactly what you have thrown away, as Adam did.

At 3/16/2015 9:00:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

I think it is a poetic description of creation. But you are right it is surprisingly accurate on many accounts.

Hugh Ross back till the first century Jewish rabbis clearly accepted the account as illustrative and accurate.

I may disagree with a few details of the interpretation but generally genesis 1 is complimentary to scientific discoveries i would agree with that

The scientifically illiterate have no idea what a reasonable scientist says considering they would never bother taking the time to find out. If they did take the time, they might even learn something, heaven forbid but would surely say a prayer to make it all go away, as learning is the work of Satan, the boogeyman.

There are a lot of theist who are scientist. I would say they are quite scientifically literate.

But, you are scientifically illiterate.

Some even openly advocate genesis as a complimentary to science, even if allegorical account. Such as Hugh Ross who is an astronomer.

Dr. Borton Davidheiser has already refuted the dishonest Dr. Ross' young earth creationist nonsense.


Second if you read the earliest interpretations of Genesis by Jewish Rabbis you find they did not take it as literal 7 days. They also proposed many other things that sound like what science is advocating. This was in the 50A.D. of the 1st century. So they didn't interpret Genesis to comply with scientific pressure. They actually did so through using other parts oft he torah and letting scripture interpret scripture.

Yes, that is why you're scientifically, when you say things like, "proposed many other things that sound like what science is advocating".

Also as a departure from earlier philosophies it was St. Augustine in 400a.d. who proposed Time and Material world were created at the same time by God. Not to mention he proposed that past, present and future all exist equally right now. Book 11. This wasn't proposed by a Christian Theist to conform to General Relativity. He arrived at it by thought and scriptural analysis.

So what?

Christians and Jews were claiming a beginning to the universe long before Science got a finite universe right in mid 1900's.

LOL.

The idea that the Universe is Rational and to some extent Comprehensible is an assumption still underlining Scientific investigation and can be wholly attributed to Theist thinking that the universe was created by an omniscient God.

LOL.

Despite just the accuracy of Theist thought and scripture you also have to address the historical roots of modern science being planted and fed by religious institutions. The Catholic Church preserved much history, artifacts and knowledge from before the Dark ages to be re-investigated in later ages. Also the great contribution to Math and Astronomy from Muslims.

There is no conflict between science and religion. They are apples and oranges in a lot of respect, but agree more than you think or I suspect more than you have been told.

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] http://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org...
[3] http://archive.org...
[4] http://www.sacred-texts.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

I usually avoid your posts, but I thought with so much out there for you to read yourself, this might actually be a real chance for you to be educated.

LOL. That is garbage.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 6:46:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 4:27:47 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/16/2015 10:02:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 9:33:51 AM, JJ50 wrote:
More garbage from someone who lives in LA LA land!

No, more truth from a subject of God's Kingdom.

Indeed. You know, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

MCB: If you don't believe Jesus is actually Gabriel, you will suffer and be tortured.

........ Ok.

ALL God's people and beasts are in Christ ( the thoughts of God ).
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 6:52:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 6:16:57 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/16/2015 5:50:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/16/2015 5:20:13 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/16/2015 7:28:29 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Even some reasonable scientists admit that this, read properly, is an accurate, if limited, description of the formation of the universe and the order in which science shows things happened.

Many people deliberately misread it because they don;t want to accept what it actually proves beyond doubt.

Therefore it is your choice, your loss. You may never know, what you are missing out on, unless the "torment" that scripture speaks of such as you unbelievers suffering before your destruction is the absolute realisation of exactly what you have thrown away, as Adam did.

At 3/16/2015 9:00:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

I think it is a poetic description of creation. But you are right it is surprisingly accurate on many accounts.

Hugh Ross back till the first century Jewish rabbis clearly accepted the account as illustrative and accurate.

I may disagree with a few details of the interpretation but generally genesis 1 is complimentary to scientific discoveries i would agree with that

The scientifically illiterate have no idea what a reasonable scientist says considering they would never bother taking the time to find out. If they did take the time, they might even learn something, heaven forbid but would surely say a prayer to make it all go away, as learning is the work of Satan, the boogeyman.

There are a lot of theist who are scientist. I would say they are quite scientifically literate.

But, you are scientifically illiterate.

I'm not a scientist but I wouldn't consider myself scientifically illiterate. Your opinion doesn't mean much in this regard. Because with most my teachers, instructors and college professors they seemed to like my questions and comments. Implying to me that I had a good comprehension of the subject matter to include different kinds of science classes. Not to mention a 3.8 grade point average. Not the best, but as a working adult with kids I think it's passable for literacy.


Some even openly advocate genesis as a complimentary to science, even if allegorical account. Such as Hugh Ross who is an astronomer.

Dr. Borton Davidheiser has already refuted the dishonest Dr. Ross' young earth creationist nonsense.

There's a lot with Hugh Ross's view I do not agree with. My point was that there are some very scientifically literate people who advocate a complimentary read of genesis to science. And I think you are using Dr. Bolton Davidheiser from a quick Google search.

Because Dr. Boltor DavidHeiser has been a professor of biology at both Westmont and Biola colleges. He holds degrees from Swarthmore College (A.B.) and Johns Hopkins University (Ph.D.). He has held two research fellowships. Davidheiser contributed a monthly column, "Science and the Bible," to The King's Business for eleven years.

He is the author of Evolution and the Christian Faith (1969), Science and the Bible (1971), "The Scopes Trial," an article appearing in volume three of this series, and "Gregor Mendel," a biographical essay in volume five of this series.

He was a creationist zoologist widely known for his book Evolution and Christian Faith (1969), in which he exposed many of the deficiencies and contradictions in the theory of evolution.

So you don't want to read the links or look at the arguments. you want to google "hugh ross fake" and copy paste the first name you see. Which just shows your immaturity because "refuted" would have gotten you the atheist pages.



Second if you read the earliest interpretations of Genesis by Jewish Rabbis you find they did not take it as literal 7 days. They also proposed many other things that sound like what science is advocating. This was in the 50A.D. of the 1st century. So they didn't interpret Genesis to comply with scientific pressure. They actually did so through using other parts oft he torah and letting scripture interpret scripture.

Yes, that is why you're scientifically, when you say things like, "proposed many other things that sound like what science is advocating".

Then I lead into a short list of somethings that scientist and theologians agree upon, and not because the theologian was trying to interpret scripture to fit science. As noted the rabbis and Augustine 100s of years before science.


Also as a departure from earlier philosophies it was St. Augustine in 400a.d. who proposed Time and Material world were created at the same time by God. Not to mention he proposed that past, present and future all exist equally right now. Book 11. This wasn't proposed by a Christian Theist to conform to General Relativity. He arrived at it by thought and scriptural analysis.

So what?

You don't find it interesting that through study of Holy scripture and reason a view of the universe was constructed that matches with what science is just now saying?


Christians and Jews were claiming a beginning to the universe long before Science got a finite universe right in mid 1900's.

LOL.

What's funny? you do know Science has been wrong in the past, is probably wrong now, and will be wrong on many things to come.


The idea that the Universe is Rational and to some extent Comprehensible is an assumption still underlining Scientific investigation and can be wholly attributed to Theist thinking that the universe was created by an omniscient God.

LOL.

You can laugh but that doesn't demean or take away from the truth. This core assumption in the field of Science is directly from religious thought.


Despite just the accuracy of Theist thought and scripture you also have to address the historical roots of modern science being planted and fed by religious institutions. The Catholic Church preserved much history, artifacts and knowledge from before the Dark ages to be re-investigated in later ages. Also the great contribution to Math and Astronomy from Muslims.

There is no conflict between science and religion. They are apples and oranges in a lot of respect, but agree more than you think or I suspect more than you have been told.

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] http://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org...
[3] http://archive.org...
[4] http://www.sacred-texts.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

I usually avoid your posts, but I thought with so much out there for you to read yourself, this might actually be a real chance for you to be educated.

LOL. That is garbage.

I see nothing but troll from you. I know my words don't mean much but the sources I gave you cite many many other sources. If you are rational and hold your beliefs within reason, then they should standup to the evidence, history, and criticism.

but you have to acknowledge and investigate the criticism before a stronger position can be born out.

I hope this helps you become stronger.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 7:04:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 5:34:27 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/16/2015 5:15:40 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 5:05:08 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/16/2015 4:55:13 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 4:27:47 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/16/2015 10:02:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 9:33:51 AM, JJ50 wrote:
More garbage from someone who lives in LA LA land!

No, more truth from a subject of God's Kingdom.

Indeed. You know, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

MCB: If you don't believe Jesus is actually Gabriel, you will suffer and be tortured.

........ Ok.

No I don't. I believe Michael is a much more likely choice.

However, we are only Brothers in Christ if we worship the God he worshipped, teach what he taught, and do our best to live as he did (for others, not for ourselves).

I'm taking a guess you don't believe in the trinity?

Since it is a completely unscriptural concept introduced into the church in the 4th century, you have guessed correctly.

I believe only in what Christ and the Apostles taught, and they did not teach anything remotely Trinitarian.

However it is possible to prove that the Trinity is false, even in translations which have been deliberately mistranslated to try and support it.

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

Refute these and convince me.

I have no intention of even watching then.

However:

Revelation 3:14
YLT(i) 14 `And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness"the faithful and true"the chief of the creation of God;

God's son was created.

When he came to earth to become the Christ he had the glory only available to an only begotten son, a description which can only apply to God's son since, of all the sons of God there have been, Angelic or human, he was the only one created without the assistance of anyone else:.

Genesis 1:26
YLT(i) 26 And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.'

God was not alone in creating Adam.

Colossians 1:15
YLT(i) 15 who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation,

He is not God but the image of God, a copy of him. Also he was the first born, with all the rights of a firstborn son as John 1:14 tells us.

Colossians 1:16
YLT(i) 16 because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created,

All things were created through him, he worked with his father in creating everything.

John 20:17
YLT(i) 17 Jesus saith to her, `Be not touching me, for I have not yet ascended unto my Father; and be going on to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and to your God.'

Even after his resurrection he has a God, as he told Mary.

1 Peter 1:3
YLT(i) 3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to the abundance of His kindness did beget us again to a living hope, through the rising again of Jesus Christ out of the dead,

Ephesians 1:3
YLT(i) 3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who did bless us in every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,

2 Corinthians 11:31
YLT(i) 31 the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"who is blessed to the ages"hath known that I do not lie! "

In this and in many other places the Apostles praised God for Christ, they did not praise Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:24
YLT(i) 24 then"the end, when he may deliver up the reign to God, even the Father, when he may have made useless all rule, and all authority and power"

When Christ's reign is over he hands the Kingdom back to his father, to whom it really belongs.

That is why, in the scripture below he is only the Prince of Peace, not the King, because true peace will not be raised until the Kingdom is ready to be handed back to his father.

Isaiah 9:6
YLT(i) 6 For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

Notice also he is called mighty God, not almighty God.

John 1:1
Diaglott(i) 1 In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.

Actually this one is more telling than it at first appears, because for some reason the studybible.info site has chosen to show the interlinear rendering of the verse into the one in the English only column, which,a s you will see if you compare them using the link below, has been deliberately changed when transferred from one to the other.

http://archive.org...

This is a very good example of how scripture has been deliberately mistranslated to accommodate the Trinity teaching.

That is also the reason that many translators have deliberately removed God self declared holy name from the vast majority of the places where it belongs and replaced it with LORD or similar.

Something which may seem strange when you stop to think that Jesus told us we should pray for the sanctification of his father's name.

There is so much more, but I suggest that you read the letters for yourself, preferably in more than one translation, to see that the whole tone of them puts God before Christ in importance.

Jehovah and his son really are father and son.

Ask yourself, who was Jesus talking to when he prayed?

Who replied?

Who resurrected him?

Why do the Apostles continually praise and thank the "God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ" rather than Christ himself?
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 9:06:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 7:04:23 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 5:34:27 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/16/2015 5:15:40 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 5:05:08 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/16/2015 4:55:13 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 4:27:47 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/16/2015 10:02:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/16/2015 9:33:51 AM, JJ50 wrote:
More garbage from someone who lives in LA LA land!

No, more truth from a subject of God's Kingdom.

Indeed. You know, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

MCB: If you don't believe Jesus is actually Gabriel, you will suffer and be tortured.

........ Ok.

No I don't. I believe Michael is a much more likely choice.

However, we are only Brothers in Christ if we worship the God he worshipped, teach what he taught, and do our best to live as he did (for others, not for ourselves).

I'm taking a guess you don't believe in the trinity?

Since it is a completely unscriptural concept introduced into the church in the 4th century, you have guessed correctly.

I believe only in what Christ and the Apostles taught, and they did not teach anything remotely Trinitarian.

However it is possible to prove that the Trinity is false, even in translations which have been deliberately mistranslated to try and support it.

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

Refute these and convince me.

I have no intention of even watching then.

However:

Revelation 3:14
YLT(i) 14 `And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness"the faithful and true"the chief of the creation of God;

God's son was created.

When he came to earth to become the Christ he had the glory only available to an only begotten son, a description which can only apply to God's son since, of all the sons of God there have been, Angelic or human, he was the only one created without the assistance of anyone else:.

Genesis 1:26
YLT(i) 26 And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.'

God was not alone in creating Adam.

Colossians 1:15
YLT(i) 15 who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation,

He is not God but the image of God, a copy of him. Also he was the first born, with all the rights of a firstborn son as John 1:14 tells us.

Colossians 1:16
YLT(i) 16 because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created,

All things were created through him, he worked with his father in creating everything.

John 20:17
YLT(i) 17 Jesus saith to her, `Be not touching me, for I have not yet ascended unto my Father; and be going on to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and to your God.'

Even after his resurrection he has a God, as he told Mary.

1 Peter 1:3
YLT(i) 3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to the abundance of His kindness did beget us again to a living hope, through the rising again of Jesus Christ out of the dead,

Ephesians 1:3
YLT(i) 3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who did bless us in every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,

2 Corinthians 11:31
YLT(i) 31 the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"who is blessed to the ages"hath known that I do not lie! "

In this and in many other places the Apostles praised God for Christ, they did not praise Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:24
YLT(i) 24 then"the end, when he may deliver up the reign to God, even the Father, when he may have made useless all rule, and all authority and power"

When Christ's reign is over he hands the Kingdom back to his father, to whom it really belongs.

That is why, in the scripture below he is only the Prince of Peace, not the King, because true peace will not be raised until the Kingdom is ready to be handed back to his father.

Isaiah 9:6
YLT(i) 6 For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

Notice also he is called mighty God, not almighty God.

John 1:1
Diaglott(i) 1 In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.

Actually this one is more telling than it at first appears, because for some reason the studybible.info site has chosen to show the interlinear rendering of the verse into the one in the English only column, which,a s you will see if you compare them using the link below, has been deliberately changed when transferred from one to the other.

http://archive.org...

This is a very good example of how scripture has been deliberately mistranslated to accommodate the Trinity teaching.

That is also the reason that many translators have deliberately removed God self declared holy name from the vast majority of the places where it belongs and replaced it with LORD or similar.

Something which may seem strange when you stop to think that Jesus told us we should pray for the sanctification of his father's name.

There is so much more, but I suggest that you read the letters for yourself, preferably in more than one translation, to see that the whole tone of them puts God before Christ in importance.

Jehovah and his son really are father and son.

Ask yourself, who was Jesus talking to when he prayed?

Who replied?

Who resurrected him?

Why do the Apostles continually praise and thank the "God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ" rather than Christ himself?

Wasn't it nice of the antichrists to add their false god's name Jesus in front of Christ. It surely took away the meaning of Christ when they did that, that's for sure.