Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Let There Be Light!

DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 6:54:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Skeptic complaint: (1:3) Let there be light

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

This is so easy. The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

So the sun and moon were created in verse 1.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 7:01:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 6:54:32 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
Skeptic complaint: (1:3) Let there be light

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

This is so easy. The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

So the sun and moon were created in verse 1.
Not according to the bible.
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 7:04:11 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 7:01:17 PM, bulproof wrote:
Not according to the bible.

Yes, according to the Bible.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 7:06:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 7:04:11 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:01:17 PM, bulproof wrote:
Not according to the bible.

Yes, according to the Bible.
Nah I've read it.
The sun moon and stars were made days later.
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 7:15:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 7:06:08 PM, bulproof wrote:
Nah I've read it.
The sun moon and stars were made days later.

No, you see the planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.

The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)

In Genesis 1:3 the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable.

The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action:

A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence."

Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]."

The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 8:10:20 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 7:15:23 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:06:08 PM, bulproof wrote:
Nah I've read it.
The sun moon and stars were made days later.

No, you see the planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.

The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)

In Genesis 1:3 the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable.

The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action:

A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence."

Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]."

The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.

Why do you insist on commenting on things that you have no knowledge of? It makes you look like an idiot. Oh wait. Did I say LOOK like an idiot?
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 8:12:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:10:20 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:15:23 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:06:08 PM, bulproof wrote:
Nah I've read it.
The sun moon and stars were made days later.

No, you see the planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.

The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)

In Genesis 1:3 the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable.

The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action:

A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence."

Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]."

The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.

Why do you insist on commenting on things that you have no knowledge of? It makes you look like an idiot. Oh wait. Did I say LOOK like an idiot?

Sorry. Replied to the wrong post again. That was for Bulcrap...I mean Bulproof. Ah heck. Bulcrap fits him better.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 8:15:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 6:54:32 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
Skeptic complaint: (1:3) Let there be light

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

This is so easy. The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

So the sun and moon were created in verse 1.

At some point, doesn't the song and dance to explain away all the inconsistencies get tiring?

Is there any other book that has been proven to be reliable that requires so much justification to explain contradictory statements?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 9:01:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 6:54:32 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
Skeptic complaint: (1:3) Let there be light

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

This is so easy. The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

So the sun and moon were created in verse 1.

I think Genesis reads more like a snapshot of what men knew and believed to be important for them, which is why we see the creation of a dark formless earth followed by the morning and evening, the first day, "Light" an establishment of what they knew, that a morning and and an evening gave them a time frame of a day, which was necessary to establish if one was to make a time line for the rest of the creation story.

The next two days saw the creation of the next most important things in their lives, water, dry land and food.

The sun and moon were not as important, they had little if any knowledge other than they were a couple of lights on a vaulted canopy overhead, hence were relegated to the fourth day of creation. They couldn't possibly understand the sun-earth relationship that causes night and day.
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
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 9:17:15 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:10:20 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:15:23 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:06:08 PM, bulproof wrote:
Nah I've read it.
The sun moon and stars were made days later.

No, you see the planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.

The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)

In Genesis 1:3 the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable.

The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action:

A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence."

Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]."

The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.

Why do you insist on commenting on things that you have no knowledge of? It makes you look like an idiot. Oh wait. Did I say LOOK like an idiot?
It's not hard to know something about it little fella, just gotta read the book

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the 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 the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made 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 the 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 the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 9:39:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:15:26 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At some point, doesn't the song and dance to explain away all the inconsistencies get tiring?

Is there any other book that has been proven to be reliable that requires so much justification to explain contradictory statements?

We're talking about a collection of books that is the most widely published in terms of quantity and language and has been grossly misrepresented and misunderstood, with much of its interpretation being influenced by outside sources, distorted, and a great deal of it still traditionally upheld since the Dark Ages when it was very little understood.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 9:41:07 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 9:17:15 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:10:20 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:15:23 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:06:08 PM, bulproof wrote:
Nah I've read it.
The sun moon and stars were made days later.

No, you see the planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.

The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)

In Genesis 1:3 the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable.

The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action:

A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence."

Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]."

The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.

Why do you insist on commenting on things that you have no knowledge of? It makes you look like an idiot. Oh wait. Did I say LOOK like an idiot?
It's not hard to know something about it little fella, just gotta read the book

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the 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 the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made 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 the 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 the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

I believe that it was already explained how the English translation is not completely accurate. Are you fluent in Hebrew? I'm thinking you are not. So you may have read it, but you certainly do not understand it.

Here's another textbook example of how people like you misinterpret Scripture. Remember the day of Pentecost, when the Apostles were speaking in tongues? One account mentions the sixth hour. Another mentions the same event taking place at the ninth hour.

This seems like a contradiction. But if you do a little research, you would find out that the accounts were written by two people, to two different groups of people in different geographical locations. Each one had a different method of telling time. To be more precise, their day started at a different hour.

Both were referring to the same hour, but in a way that the people they were writing to would understand. Hence, there is no contradiction.

In order to understand Scripture, one must apply Biblical, cultural, and historical context.

I'm guessing that people like you are either too lazy, just don't care, or both. Either way, your ignorance is quite profound.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 9:48:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 9:41:07 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:17:15 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:10:20 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:15:23 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:06:08 PM, bulproof wrote:
Nah I've read it.
The sun moon and stars were made days later.

No, you see the planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.

The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)

In Genesis 1:3 the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable.

The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action:

A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence."

Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]."

The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.

Why do you insist on commenting on things that you have no knowledge of? It makes you look like an idiot. Oh wait. Did I say LOOK like an idiot?
It's not hard to know something about it little fella, just gotta read the book

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the 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 the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made 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 the 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 the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

I believe that it was already explained how the English translation is not completely accurate. Are you fluent in Hebrew? I'm thinking you are not. So you may have read it, but you certainly do not understand it.

Here's another textbook example of how people like you misinterpret Scripture. Remember the day of Pentecost, when the Apostles were speaking in tongues? One account mentions the sixth hour. Another mentions the same event taking place at the ninth hour.

This seems like a contradiction. But if you do a little research, you would find out that the accounts were written by two people, to two different groups of people in different geographical locations. Each one had a different method of telling time. To be more precise, their day started at a different hour.

Both were referring to the same hour, but in a way that the people they were writing to would understand. Hence, there is no contradiction.

In order to understand Scripture, one must apply Biblical, cultural, and historical context.

I'm guessing that people like you are either too lazy, just don't care, or both. Either way, your ignorance is quite profound.
So now pentecost happened on the fourth day as well? If not then WTF are you jabbering about.
BTW all the translations say the same thing so I guess the Hebrew translators ALL got it wrong for millennia.
hahaha
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 9:53:24 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 9:01:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
The sun and moon were not as important, they had little if any knowledge other than they were a couple of lights on a vaulted canopy overhead, hence were relegated to the fourth day of creation. They couldn't possibly understand the sun-earth relationship that causes night and day.

Thousands of years later it was assumed that darkness came from vapors from the earth and daylight from vapors from the sky.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 9:53:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 6:54:32 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
Skeptic complaint: (1:3) Let there be light

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

This is so easy. The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

So the sun and moon were created in verse 1.

Why can't Genesis, or the entire bible for the matter, be a metaphor, analogy, into the creation of God? I mean, i read it as a story of God's creation (of the immortal realm mainly)...
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 10:01:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 9:48:03 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:41:07 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:17:15 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:10:20 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:15:23 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:06:08 PM, bulproof wrote:
Nah I've read it.
The sun moon and stars were made days later.

No, you see the planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.

The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)

In Genesis 1:3 the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable.

The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action:

A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence."

Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]."

The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.

Why do you insist on commenting on things that you have no knowledge of? It makes you look like an idiot. Oh wait. Did I say LOOK like an idiot?
It's not hard to know something about it little fella, just gotta read the book

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the 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 the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made 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 the 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 the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

I believe that it was already explained how the English translation is not completely accurate. Are you fluent in Hebrew? I'm thinking you are not. So you may have read it, but you certainly do not understand it.

Here's another textbook example of how people like you misinterpret Scripture. Remember the day of Pentecost, when the Apostles were speaking in tongues? One account mentions the sixth hour. Another mentions the same event taking place at the ninth hour.

This seems like a contradiction. But if you do a little research, you would find out that the accounts were written by two people, to two different groups of people in different geographical locations. Each one had a different method of telling time. To be more precise, their day started at a different hour.

Both were referring to the same hour, but in a way that the people they were writing to would understand. Hence, there is no contradiction.

In order to understand Scripture, one must apply Biblical, cultural, and historical context.

I'm guessing that people like you are either too lazy, just don't care, or both. Either way, your ignorance is quite profound.
So now pentecost happened on the fourth day as well? If not then WTF are you jabbering about.
BTW all the translations say the same thing so I guess the Hebrew translators ALL got it wrong for millennia.
hahaha

The translations are correct. They translate exactly what was said. Think of it this way. It is not uncommon for people who speak English to have different words for the same thing or concept. For instance, the British call the trunk of a car a boot. All the translations say the same thing. They faithfully translated exactly what was written. The two accounts are referring to the same hour, but in the local vernacular. Is any of this getting through your noggin?
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 10:03:18 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 9:01:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:54:32 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
Skeptic complaint: (1:3) Let there be light

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

This is so easy. The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

So the sun and moon were created in verse 1.

I think Genesis reads more like a snapshot of what men knew and believed to be important for them, which is why we see the creation of a dark formless earth followed by the morning and evening, the first day, "Light" an establishment of what they knew, that a morning and and an evening gave them a time frame of a day, which was necessary to establish if one was to make a time line for the rest of the creation story.

The next two days saw the creation of the next most important things in their lives, water, dry land and food.

The sun and moon were not as important, they had little if any knowledge other than they were a couple of lights on a vaulted canopy overhead, hence were relegated to the fourth day of creation. They couldn't possibly understand the sun-earth relationship that causes night and day.

There are no contradictions. You simply lack understanding. As I explained in my previous reply.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 10:07:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 10:01:30 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:48:03 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:41:07 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:17:15 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:10:20 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:15:23 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:06:08 PM, bulproof wrote:
Nah I've read it.
The sun moon and stars were made days later.

No, you see the planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.

The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)

In Genesis 1:3 the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable.

The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action:

A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence."

Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]."

The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.

Why do you insist on commenting on things that you have no knowledge of? It makes you look like an idiot. Oh wait. Did I say LOOK like an idiot?
It's not hard to know something about it little fella, just gotta read the book

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the 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 the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made 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 the 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 the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

I believe that it was already explained how the English translation is not completely accurate. Are you fluent in Hebrew? I'm thinking you are not. So you may have read it, but you certainly do not understand it.

Here's another textbook example of how people like you misinterpret Scripture. Remember the day of Pentecost, when the Apostles were speaking in tongues? One account mentions the sixth hour. Another mentions the same event taking place at the ninth hour.

This seems like a contradiction. But if you do a little research, you would find out that the accounts were written by two people, to two different groups of people in different geographical locations. Each one had a different method of telling time. To be more precise, their day started at a different hour.

Both were referring to the same hour, but in a way that the people they were writing to would understand. Hence, there is no contradiction.

In order to understand Scripture, one must apply Biblical, cultural, and historical context.

I'm guessing that people like you are either too lazy, just don't care, or both. Either way, your ignorance is quite profound.
So now pentecost happened on the fourth day as well? If not then WTF are you jabbering about.
BTW all the translations say the same thing so I guess the Hebrew translators ALL got it wrong for millennia.
hahaha

The translations are correct. They translate exactly what was said. Think of it this way. It is not uncommon for people who speak English to have different words for the same thing or concept. For instance, the British call the trunk of a car a boot. All the translations say the same thing. They faithfully translated exactly what was written. The two accounts are referring to the same hour, but in the local vernacular. Is any of this getting through your noggin?

Don't look now but the discussion concerns the creation of the sun moon and stars, whatever insane tangent you are going off on is all yours.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 10:27:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 10:07:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:01:30 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:48:03 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:41:07 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:17:15 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:10:20 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:15:23 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:06:08 PM, bulproof wrote:
Nah I've read it.
The sun moon and stars were made days later.

No, you see the planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.

The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)

In Genesis 1:3 the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable.

The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action:

A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence."

Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]."

The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.

Why do you insist on commenting on things that you have no knowledge of? It makes you look like an idiot. Oh wait. Did I say LOOK like an idiot?
It's not hard to know something about it little fella, just gotta read the book

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the 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 the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made 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 the 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 the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

I believe that it was already explained how the English translation is not completely accurate. Are you fluent in Hebrew? I'm thinking you are not. So you may have read it, but you certainly do not understand it.

Here's another textbook example of how people like you misinterpret Scripture. Remember the day of Pentecost, when the Apostles were speaking in tongues? One account mentions the sixth hour. Another mentions the same event taking place at the ninth hour.

This seems like a contradiction. But if you do a little research, you would find out that the accounts were written by two people, to two different groups of people in different geographical locations. Each one had a different method of telling time. To be more precise, their day started at a different hour.

Both were referring to the same hour, but in a way that the people they were writing to would understand. Hence, there is no contradiction.

In order to understand Scripture, one must apply Biblical, cultural, and historical context.

I'm guessing that people like you are either too lazy, just don't care, or both. Either way, your ignorance is quite profound.
So now pentecost happened on the fourth day as well? If not then WTF are you jabbering about.
BTW all the translations say the same thing so I guess the Hebrew translators ALL got it wrong for millennia.
hahaha

The translations are correct. They translate exactly what was said. Think of it this way. It is not uncommon for people who speak English to have different words for the same thing or concept. For instance, the British call the trunk of a car a boot. All the translations say the same thing. They faithfully translated exactly what was written. The two accounts are referring to the same hour, but in the local vernacular. Is any of this getting through your noggin?

Don't look now but the discussion concerns the creation of the sun moon and stars, whatever insane tangent you are going off on is all yours.

You're a perfect example of how you can't fix stupid. I'd explain, but you just wouldn't get it. I'm pretty sure that others get what I was saying. I'm thinking you are being deliberately obtuse. Or maybe you really are that stupid? Did you graduate the sixth grade, by any chance? I'm being extremely generous here, when I say the sixth grade, and not the second. I really am.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 10:28:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 6:54:32 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
Skeptic complaint: (1:3) Let there be light

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

This is so easy. The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

So the sun and moon were created in verse 1.

That is putting the burden on Christians when Genesis was Gods revelation to Moses. We know Moses took 40 years to lead the Jews out of Egypt to the promised land. The distance was just 250 miles and should have taken between 11 days to a month at most. It took him 40 years to find it.
Moses even got other instructions wrong and instead of speaking to the rocks beat it with his staff which upset God and Moses was barred from entering the promise land even though he led his people to it.

Would you trust Moses to get the creation story right?

The Jews for 2000 years have been telling Christians they got the bible story wrong. They even crucified Jesus for repeating the Old Testament stories to the Jews of his time.
The only light that can be shed is the Jews of ancient times were less advanced that their neighbours like the Egyptians, Babylonians, Mesopotamia, India and China and never contributed anything in the field of science, mathematics, medicine or practical knowledge to the world in ancient times. If anything they plagiarized most of their stories to promote some nationalistic pride.

Why would you look to a Jewish source for answers when you know the author (Moses) spent most of his life wandering in circles for 40 years in a desert and started a nation with equally lost people who wandered for 40 years in the same desert just as lost as Moses.

The Jews were no more evil than other races. They were persecuted and enslaved by their more powerful and advanced neighbours because they were a backward fractured tribal group.

The Jews in Israel today are not the dumb Jews of Middle Eastern origins but Ashkenazi Jews of European descent. But even they cannot interpret the old books with modern knowledge of science and cosmology because the Christians won't allow them to. Because then, the bible will no longer be the inspired word of God and most of the bible stores will be dismissed as rubbish.
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 10:41:06 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 9:53:57 PM, Outplayz wrote:
Why can't Genesis, or the entire bible for the matter, be a metaphor, analogy, into the creation of God? I mean, i read it as a story of God's creation (of the immortal realm mainly)...

Well, it could have been, but we know that it wasn't because it talks about real people and real events that are referred to later as such. There are metaphoric uses in the Bible, of course, but you can't dismiss all of it that pertains to the supernatural to metaphor. It doesn't fit.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 10:54:02 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 10:27:46 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:07:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:01:30 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:48:03 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:41:07 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:17:15 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:10:20 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:15:23 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:06:08 PM, bulproof wrote:
Nah I've read it.
The sun moon and stars were made days later.

No, you see the planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.

The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)

In Genesis 1:3 the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable.

The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action:

A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence."

Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]."

The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.

Why do you insist on commenting on things that you have no knowledge of? It makes you look like an idiot. Oh wait. Did I say LOOK like an idiot?
It's not hard to know something about it little fella, just gotta read the book

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the 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 the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made 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 the 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 the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

I believe that it was already explained how the English translation is not completely accurate. Are you fluent in Hebrew? I'm thinking you are not. So you may have read it, but you certainly do not understand it.

Here's another textbook example of how people like you misinterpret Scripture. Remember the day of Pentecost, when the Apostles were speaking in tongues? One account mentions the sixth hour. Another mentions the same event taking place at the ninth hour.

This seems like a contradiction. But if you do a little research, you would find out that the accounts were written by two people, to two different groups of people in different geographical locations. Each one had a different method of telling time. To be more precise, their day started at a different hour.

Both were referring to the same hour, but in a way that the people they were writing to would understand. Hence, there is no contradiction.

In order to understand Scripture, one must apply Biblical, cultural, and historical context.

I'm guessing that people like you are either too lazy, just don't care, or both. Either way, your ignorance is quite profound.
So now pentecost happened on the fourth day as well? If not then WTF are you jabbering about.
BTW all the translations say the same thing so I guess the Hebrew translators ALL got it wrong for millennia.
hahaha

The translations are correct. They translate exactly what was said. Think of it this way. It is not uncommon for people who speak English to have different words for the same thing or concept. For instance, the British call the trunk of a car a boot. All the translations say the same thing. They faithfully translated exactly what was written. The two accounts are referring to the same hour, but in the local vernacular. Is any of this getting through your noggin?

Don't look now but the discussion concerns the creation of the sun moon and stars, whatever insane tangent you are going off on is all yours.

You're a perfect example of how you can't fix stupid. I'd explain, but you just wouldn't get it. I'm pretty sure that others get what I was saying. I'm thinking you are being deliberately obtuse. Or maybe you really are that stupid? Did you graduate the sixth grade, by any chance? I'm being extremely generous here, when I say the sixth grade, and not the second. I really am.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the 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 the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made 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 the 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 the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Show me where pentecost is mentioned you ignorant little troll. hahahahaha
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:01:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 10:28:27 PM, Harikrish wrote:
That is putting the burden on Christians when Genesis was Gods revelation to Moses. We know Moses took 40 years to lead the Jews out of Egypt to the promised land. The distance was just 250 miles and should have taken between 11 days to a month at most. It took him 40 years to find it.

Wasn't there something about them being punished and made to wander for 40 years?

Moses even got other instructions wrong and instead of speaking to the rocks beat it with his staff which upset God and Moses was barred from entering the promise land even though he led his people to it.

Actually he forgot, in his anger, to give credit to Jehovah for the water.

Would you trust Moses to get the creation story right?

Yeah, your interpretation might be the thing lacking here.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:31:34 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 11:01:08 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:28:27 PM, Harikrish wrote:
That is putting the burden on Christians when Genesis was Gods revelation to Moses. We know Moses took 40 years to lead the Jews out of Egypt to the promised land. The distance was just 250 miles and should have taken between 11 days to a month at most. It took him 40 years to find it.

Wasn't there something about them being punished and made to wander for 40 years?

If keeping Moses and the Jews dumb and stupid wandering around in circles for 40 years in the desert was Gods punishment. He certainly paid a heavy price later. They crucified his son Jesus and all his efforts to send tbe holy spirt to help them failed. We now have the cause and effect of His impulsive decisions.

Moses even got other instructions wrong and instead of speaking to the rocks beat it with his staff which upset God and Moses was barred from entering the promise land even though he led his people to it.

Actually he forgot, in his anger, to give credit to Jehovah for the water.

God picked a man (Moses) who was both terrible at directions and had a poor memory. You cannot make stuff like this up. It has to be true.

Would you trust Moses to get the creation story right?

Yeah, your interpretation might be the thing lacking here.

Won't be surprised if you threw 40 years of your life away trying to read God's inspiration in some mans writing, who wandered in the hot desert sun for 40 years , lost his way several times , lost his memory with the sun frying his brains and was shut out when he finally reached the promised land after 40 years. You cannot make stuff like this up, it has to be true.

Not to repeat the same mistake God didn't give Jesus 40 years and pulled him out just after 3 and even gave up on the Jews and let the Romans have their way with their temple and city.

What was God expecting Jesus to do in 3 years what Mises could not achieve in 40. Any wonder why they rejected and crucified Jesus.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 9:39:21 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 10:41:06 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:53:57 PM, Outplayz wrote:
Why can't Genesis, or the entire bible for the matter, be a metaphor, analogy, into the creation of God? I mean, i read it as a story of God's creation (of the immortal realm mainly)...

Well, it could have been, but we know that it wasn't because it talks about real people and real events that are referred to later as such. There are metaphoric uses in the Bible, of course, but you can't dismiss all of it that pertains to the supernatural to metaphor. It doesn't fit.

Actually, wouldn't it fit even better? If i said the supernatural stuff happened in another dimension, and we wrote about it here as metaphor or illustrative verses to the stories... it would make more sense the supernatural events happened in another dimension that would allow for such things to take place vs. a reality we know they can't happen in.
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 11:42:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 9:39:21 PM, Outplayz wrote:
Actually, wouldn't it fit even better? If i said the supernatural stuff happened in another dimension, and we wrote about it here as metaphor or illustrative verses to the stories... it would make more sense the supernatural events happened in another dimension that would allow for such things to take place vs. a reality we know they can't happen in.

You are taking highly intelligent forms of life acting on this planet which they created and minimizing their potential because you and a relatively few scientists haven't experienced those things.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 12:21:07 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 11:42:01 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/14/2016 9:39:21 PM, Outplayz wrote:
Actually, wouldn't it fit even better? If i said the supernatural stuff happened in another dimension, and we wrote about it here as metaphor or illustrative verses to the stories... it would make more sense the supernatural events happened in another dimension that would allow for such things to take place vs. a reality we know they can't happen in.

You are taking highly intelligent forms of life acting on this planet which they created and minimizing their potential because you and a relatively few scientists haven't experienced those things.

Don't assume right away with me, i am highly spiritual bc i have had "those experiences." I often times like to argue to theists i understand god better than they do... i have come out of this habit bc it really is subjective (which is okay). But, all jokes aside, i really do understand how a "god" would form. I can see religion hint at how this happened, significantly Christianity. So... i really don't have any problems with the religion per se. I "do" hold the belief organized religion is poison, however. "Spirituality" should be defined: The truth the observer lives their life for... physically and spiritually. Which is a subjective truth, is okay, and has the design to be okay. This platform i can see in a transcendent type of way... which would make our free will also transcendent. Although there may be many reasons one comes to this reality, for the most part however, i think it was a choice. We are the character behind our true source. Immortality is what we will return to, however mortality is not too far behind. That is the only logic way, me as i am now, could handle immortality. I find the Bible, other religion, but quite recently how Jesus looked at religion to all be relevant to my belief... that is why i ask you these things, i am not as well read on the subject, but i have read it and find most of the stories could be illustrative of a different world/reality. And... i am starting to really believe all these spiritual stories are to understand what "god" is... Once one can, you can find the implications to the other questions are interesting. Just for a short second, imagine everything froze, everything then became aware, then everything and everyone looked at you... while you came to the realization you created everything... I don't know if you can do this, but it is a frightening realization, but beauty is in how the game is played i believe, the fear is momentary bc of other mechanisms to my belief which are logical to a god's actions to be parameters put in place willingly and purposefully. Design means so much more, and is so much more complex then i am hearing from theists.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 2:46:39 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 9:53:57 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:54:32 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
Skeptic complaint: (1:3) Let there be light

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

This is so easy. The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

So the sun and moon were created in verse 1.

Why can't Genesis, or the entire bible for the matter, be a metaphor, analogy, into the creation of God? I mean, i read it as a story of God's creation (of the immortal realm mainly)...

If some parts of the bible are so outlandish that finally Christians have to concede it is metaphorical at minimum, doesn't that lead to problematic implications to the credibility as a whole?

Who has the final authority as to where the line is drawn between metaphor and literal?

It applies to the laws in the bible also. Christians arbitrarily say they should not follow the law commanding execution of people that work on the Sabbath yet should follow the law prohibiting homosexuality.

It would seem that only non-Christians perceive this as a conundrum.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 4:06:57 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/15/2016 2:46:39 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:53:57 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:54:32 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
Skeptic complaint: (1:3) Let there be light

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

This is so easy. The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

So the sun and moon were created in verse 1.

Why can't Genesis, or the entire bible for the matter, be a metaphor, analogy, into the creation of God? I mean, i read it as a story of God's creation (of the immortal realm mainly)...

If some parts of the bible are so outlandish that finally Christians have to concede it is metaphorical at minimum, doesn't that lead to problematic implications to the credibility as a whole?

It definitely does. Just an Fyi, i am agnostic atheist - spiritual; so i don't look at religion the same as theists. I think parts of religion are spiritual bc the person writing it had that intelligence that transcended the rest of the group. I find that to be an interesting phenomena. Like, why is it i am so inclined to this genre, and why is it so hauntingly accurate sometimes? Idk. Scientifically, it needs to be looked at with an open mind. I just wish the rest of theists can finally let go... spirituality isn't one group, spirituality (at least if one definition always sticks) effects everyone. We are all here, we all serve a purpose that i almost think is destined. An easy falsification of characters would be to stop being who you are... which has interesting implications.

Who has the final authority as to where the line is drawn between metaphor and literal?

Idk, this is a good question bc the writers are dead. They are the only ones that could know this. Like for example. If you read my profile, you will notice a poem, which i wrote. If you examine it, you may find there is a syllable count: 666 7 666 7 666 13. From this, and the tone of the poem, you may understand that it is trying to be haunting... maybe evil. But... what you won't understand (or is much harder) is why i did this and its meaning. If you notice, all of the 666 parts are her evil; the 7's are her trying to become good, and finally the 13... both an unlucky number and, to some, a lucky number. To me, symbolizing her completion of both good and evil... to a beautiful mix of a soul. If i wasn't here, do you think you would have (or someone) figured that out?

It applies to the laws in the bible also. Christians arbitrarily say they should not follow the law commanding execution of people that work on the Sabbath yet should follow the law prohibiting homosexuality.

at this point it comes down to our evolution. We are connected to each other now, imho, making empathy broader and more vast. That is why we are become more free as we connect; we understand each other. Plus, today, no one needs a 2000 year old book to tell them what's right and wrong; we have much better writers today that cover ethics and morals, much more accurately than any religion can. However, like i said before, i am more curious to why people like me are born... why is it that spiritual things happen to me, and more so, why is it i care about or think i understand it?

It would seem that only non-Christians perceive this as a conundrum.

I agree. I can't wait for the day Christians understand that calling themselves Spiritual is much broader but... connected. They aren't just a group in that case, they are like me, an unaffiliated, trying to work with science to figure out if there is a metaphysical ontology that makes sense.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 4:21:31 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 6:54:32 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
Skeptic complaint: (1:3) Let there be light

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

God IS Light. (1 John 1:5 )
Eternal Light ( God ) creates Light ( itself )?
Light says "Let there be light".
You can interpret that as Light saying... Let non existing light exist... or.... Let the existing light continue to exist ... or Let there be some light in places where there is no light... Or let enlightenment happen in places where it has not happened before.
If God is omnipresent and God is LIGHT, then LIGHT is also omnipresent. IS Light everywhere? If it is, there cannot be any places which are in darkness due to Light dispelling darkness.

Why interpret "the LIGHT" in a literal sense as being any kind of literal light?

When Jesus said "I am the LIGHT of the world" did he mean he was a literal light or literal light source or was he meaning something else completely?
When God ( the LIGHT) created Light was Light creating itself ? Was it creating its ONLY begotten Son who is LIGHT" Was it creating physical Light before it created any physical Light source?

This is so easy. The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

IF LIGHT has always existed due to God being LIGHT, is the action of light enlightening things a completed action or continual action or both since it was completed in the past, is still being completed today and will continue to be completed in future?
When something happened in the past, is still happening today and will continue to happen in future, do you consider that a perfect or imperfect action or process?

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

How is a manufactured ( completed ) bed made (continuous) after it has been completed? You don't need to continuously make something that is already complete. You can continue to make more complete beds in future but you don't continuously keep making what you have already completed.
You can also continue to make your bed and lie in it as you continue to mess it up by all your tossing and turning.

So the sun and moon were created in verse 1.

Not according to the bible story, only according to your imagination and personal interpretation of the story.
The sun, moon and stars were created in verses 14-19 which was the fourth day according to the story.