Taking Questions on the Creation

[Cabal]

Well, English Atheists are kinda strange. They gave us the Bible in the first place, then wonder why we use It so effectively.

Effectively how? Effective at convincing people that creationism hasn't got a leg to stand on?

(Also, might wanna recall the Jews gave us the Bible, technically (definitely not "English Atheists"), and even they don't take six-day creation literally.)

But then again, Creationists are kinda strange. They gave us many sciences in the first place, then wonder why we use them so effectively.

 

[AV1611VET]

Effectively how?

Just watch me in action with It ---

(Also, might wanna recall the Jews gave us the Bible, technically (definitely not "English Atheists"), and even they don't take six-day creation literally.)

Then technically God gave us the Bible --- if you want to go that route.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

He didn't have to --- as I have pointed out before, the only one's who cry "deception" are the ones who don't interpret Genesis 1 literally.

Huh? The discrepancy between the established age of this planet and the Biblical version arises only if one takes Genesis 1 literally, doesn't it?

In addition, doesn't the fact that Adam was created as a walking-talking fully-mature human show you that he was created with age?

Where does it say that Adam was created as a mature human? Besides, creating a human being with the body and mind of an adult does not equal "embedding age" into it anymore than constructing a contemporary forgery of a Louis XIV desk does.

 

[AV1611VET]

Huh? The discrepancy between the established age of this planet and the Biblical version arises only if one takes Genesis 1 literally, doesn't it?

No --- the Bible does not say how old this planet is --- science does.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

No --- the Bible does not say how old this planet is --- science does.

Aren't you forgetting the genealogies that add up to the famous 6000 years in Ussher's calculation?

 

[Cabal]

Just watch me in action with It ---

Whatever you say

Then technically God gave us the Bible --- if you want to go that route.

Sure. Not that it helps your argument. No-one's ever successfully demonstrated to me that Genesis 1-2 / those verses where Jesus refers to creation and the flood (in passing, while talking about something else that was a slightly bigger deal) are to be taken literally.

 

[Assyrian]

Well, English Atheists are kinda strange. They gave us the Bible in the first place, then wonder why we use It so effectively.

Unless you bought your bible from an English atheist bookshop, are you saying Wycliff was an atheist? King Jame's translation committee? Or just Anglicans in general?

He didn't have to --- as I have pointed out before, the only one's who cry "deception" are the ones who don't interpret Genesis 1 literally.

There are plenty of parables and metaphors in the bible, it is hardly a secret. And Moses tells us in Psalm 90 we need to be careful interpreting God's days literally.

In addition, doesn't the fact that Adam was created as a walking-talking fully-mature human

He was?

show you that he was created with age?

Did God put 30 candles on his birthday cake? Anyway you are describing Omphalos here. I though you rejected that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Aren't you forgetting the genealogies that add up to the famous 6000 years in Ussher's calculation?

No, they don't add up to 6000 years, they add up to 4100 years, taking us up to 96 AD.

 

[AV1611VET]

No-one's ever successfully demonstrated to me that Genesis 1-2 / those verses where Jesus refers to creation and the flood (in passing, while talking about something else that was a slightly bigger deal) are to be taken literally.

That's because if you can't get past Genesis 1, you're going to have a doosey of a mess by the time you get to the New Testament.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

No, they don't add up to 6000 years, they add up to 4100 years, taking us up to 96 AD.

Fine. So the Bible does say how hold this planet is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unless you bought your bible from an English atheist bookshop, are you saying Wycliff was an atheist? King Jame's translation committee? Or just Anglicans in general?

What I meant was --- the English gave us the Bible, then some complain that we use It so effectively.

Anyway you are describing Omphalos here. I though you rejected that.

Omphalos is embedded history --- I'm embedded age.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fine. So the Bible does say how hold this planet is.

Not hardly --- and certainly not in Genesis 1.

 

[Cabal]

That's because if you can't get past Genesis 1, you're going to have a doosey of a mess by the time you get to the New Testament.

"Can't get past it" - in your opinion.

AV, I'm sure it's really convenient to limit discussion to one chapter when you have a particular axe to grind, but I on the other hand am not scared to delve into additional parts of the Bible. And the fact remains that nothing there has yet convinced me that there's anything incorrect about being a TE.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Not hardly ---

How long ago was this planet created?

and certainly not in Genesis 1.

Certainly not. So?

 

[AV1611VET]

And the fact remains that nothing there has yet convinced me that there's anything incorrect about being a TE.

The Bible doesn't teach TE --- mixing It with your brand of science does.

You might as well have said ---

And the fact remains that nothing there has yet convinced me that there's anything incorrect about being a believer in pink, invisible unicorns.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Can't get past it" - in your opinion.

Let me reiterate ---

Keep in mind that the answers will be my opinion...

 

[MrGoodBytes]

The Bible doesn't teach TE --- mixing It with your brand of science does.

You might as well have said ---

If I were you, I'd be very careful when accusing people of believing things the Bible doesn't teach - last time I checked, embedded age, atheistic idolaters and nuclear wars between angels weren't exactly featured prominently either.

 

[AV1611VET]

If I were you, I'd be very careful when accusing people of believing things the Bible doesn't teach - last time I checked, embedded age, atheistic idolaters and nuclear wars between angels weren't exactly featured prominently either.

Well, in the meantime, why don't you brush up on Genesis 1 and see if you have any [more] questions for me.

 

[Cabal]

The Bible doesn't teach TE --- mixing It with your brand of science does.

Doesn't mean it's not correct. And nothing the Bible says has indicated to me otherwise.

Also, what MrGoodBytes said. You want all the scientific results to sync with your embedded age idea to support the Bible on a technicality. Now who's mixing the Bible with a personalised (in your case, very personalised) brand of science?

Let me reiterate ---

Woops, sorry. (Was a while ago, to be fair )

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Well, in the meantime, why don't you brush up on Genesis 1 and see if you have any [more] questions for me.

I have but one question: assuming your assumption about embedded age is correct, why didn't God at least include an explanation, a hint or something to that effect in the Bible?