Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Correction...ahem...NEWS FLASH - God created it ALL out of NOTHING - you've seen nothing. LOL!

But...just to be clear - for the record...at what moment did you start believing that men were smarter than God?

Never. For that reason, I accept His direct word in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes, as well as the Bible.

 

[ScottA]

Never. For that reason, I accept His direct word in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes, as well as the Bible.

This is true - indeed you have been given just the one talent...and by your own words, you have hid it in the world.

 

[Colter]

No the internet just as the TV/radio before it, just speeds up the process of trying to murder the true gospel, something that will never happen in reality but it will die in the minds of many who are deceived. Satan...you, others working for him, will infiltrate the truth with lies... use their tricks of pretending to be of Christ while continually chipping away at the Bible as the truth, and yes, some will fall for it. However Gods word, just as God, doesn't change, only people do.

Then once you have the Bible whittled down to just about nothing and have helped God with the process of separating the firm believers from the not so firm believers, there will be no more sense to letting things continue. If things were allowed to continue, the Bible would be eventually whittled down to nothing, and not believed by anyone, defeating Gods whole purpose, no more point to it all and that's when things get interesting.

As I see it, he will return right about the time there becomes little or no point to it, and he will settle all this. Of course we all know the Bible predicts all that, and here it is happening and happening fast right under our nose. Gotta love iron clad "proof" straight from the word of God, the very word that's being disputed here. So, because the Bible has proved itself in that, and time and time again in other areas, think I'll stick with it, all of it, it's trustworthy, and just makes things so much more simple, something God is very good at...then let the chips fall where they may.

The right wingers who killed Jesus because of his Liberal, honest approach to reality, made the same shallow accusations.

 

[Colter]

I really do NOT understand those who think they can learn more from the rocks than from the word of the Creator.

It's very simple, church government tells the people that their writings (or their arrangement of other peoples writings) came from God and you innocently, sincerely, believe them. You have been deeply trained to feel guilty if you question their writings which they convinced you are Gods writings. They created a false, circular dichotomy. It is because they have created the false belief that their writings came from God, they also created a sense of fear and guilt within you that, to question their writings is a lack or failure of faith in God.

So, people of book worship circle the wagons around the errors which others, outside the guilt trip box, can plainly see. You convince yourself mainly that the flimsy defenses of places like AIG or other excruciatingly ridiculous apologetics for the exaggerations of the holy men, are air tight. Group think rules rather than common sense.

The church, having established it's authority to maintain control of it's customers, creates divisions between men. They have you thinking anyone who disagrees with you is evil when in fact it has been the church that has been evil.

 

[KWCrazy]

God made those rocks and those rocks tell their truth.

I never talked with a rock, so I wouldn't know. So these rocks tell you a "truth" that is contrary to the word of God and you believe them because... ?

 

[Colter]

I never talked with a rock, so I wouldn't know. So these rocks tell you a "truth" that is contrary to the word of God and you believe them because... ?

Insert "the words of holy men" and you would be correct.

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON

There's some flaming going on in this thread.

Please do not flame - this includes goading.

Site Rules Link

If problems continue with the thread, it may need cleans, closed, or staff actions. Please disagree peacefully, thank you.


MOD HAT OFF​

 

[BobRyan]

It's very simple, church government tells the people that their writings (or their arrangement of other peoples writings) came from God and you innocently, sincerely, believe them. You have been deeply trained to feel guilty if you question their writings which they convinced you are Gods writings. They created a false, circular dichotomy.

Here again you make Darwin's point that one must trash the Bible to be honest - if they are going to place their faith in evolutionism. Of course I agree that this is the necessary trade for those who choose belief in evolution - because unlike your book Urantia - the Bible teaches a 7 day creation week "six days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE" Ex 20:8-11

 

[Look Up]

The definition of allegory that I am working with is this, from Merriam-Webster

2 : a symbolic representation

The allegory is God describing His creation in terms of symbolic time frames the citizens of of the age would understand. They knew what a day was therefore God spoke to them of His creation in those terms.

Your given definition for the word "allegory" would go some distance to making better sense of your previous claim that the Bible is full of allegory, though in my experience and reading, your definition is unconventionally broad, and would raise questions as to what a given item in the Bible is symbolic of and what the distinction is, say, between allegory and metaphor or typology--but that is another discussion. More to the point here is whether you believe as some claim that Adam in Genesis is symbolic of a stage of otherwise naturalistic evolution or the like, though at this point I assume you would answer that one in the negative.

The general dangers are in finding symbolic meaning where it is not intended and conversely missing symbolic or analogical meaning where it is. And my general encouragement is to making distinctions where they occur, hence my preference for example for specific labels like chiasm, allusion, puns, metaphor, and so on where they occur.

Are you telling me that a parable is not a type of allegory?

Parable: a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels.

Allegory (to use your definition): a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

Those two definitions look remarkably similar to me.

I see the overlap of meaning given the definitions you give, though possible qualifications arise in that (a) the word "parable" in the period in question could be used of a wide variety of literary forms (such as a proverb which does not fit the above definition of parable) and (b) the definition of "allegory" is sometimes more narrow than the one of mine (or rather of the OED) you cite (cf. http://www.charliewstarr.com/c-s-lewis/lewis-course/best-student-papers/allegory-in-c-s-lewis-.html for example). There is also some question whether the above definition of parable neatly fits all the sections in the canonical Gospels called parables--but here is probably not the place for expansion on that subject (perhaps barring some specific example from Genesis 1).

It's nothing more than a thought experiment because Schroeder offered no evidence to support his hypothesis.

Not to mention that saying that God's "day" is a different frame of reference than ours does nothing to negate the fact that, from our frame of reference, the universe appears to have existed for approximately 13.4 billion years and the earth for approximately 4.5 billion years.

Your response suggests you still little understand and considerably misunderstand Schroeder's theory and the evidence substantiating, though of course not proving it (in the sense that a geometric theorem can be proven, for example). But here is probably not the place to continue on that subject.

The whole of Genesis 1 is God putting His creation into chronological terms that the people of the time understood.

It's simply another place in the Bible that refers back to Genesis.

It's allegorical in that it wasn't really 168 hours but is in reference to chronological terms the people of the time understood (morning and evening comprising one day).

God is simply saying "As I rested from my work, so too should you should rest from your work".

I assume you believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch. As God told Moses of His work during the Creation week, He spoke in chronological terms Moses would understand. The culture of the time already knew what a day was (morning and evening) so God spoke of how He created in those terms. There was no need to get into further detail as that would simply detract from the lesson God is trying to impart.

The above string of quotes, minus insertions of quotes of mine to which parts of your string constitute responses, now seems to clarify for me that you hold to a view of the "days" of Genesis 1 according to what I have known referred to as the "Day-Age" theory, to the effect that the "days" of Genesis 1 refer to ages of unspecified lengths of time, but each longer than a 24 hour day as we know it. For what it is worth, my denomination accepts that as one view which does not in itself violate denominational standards. The view has its strengths and weaknesses as on other grounds do the alternatives. Somewhat in this connection it may interest you to google the "Framework Hypothesis" on the Genesis creation narrative.

 

[Colter]

Here again you make Darwin's point that one must trash the Bible to be honest - if they are going to place their faith in evolutionism. Of course I agree that this is the necessary trade for those who choose belief in evolution - because unlike your book Urantia - the Bible teaches a 7 day creation week "six days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE" Ex 20:8-11

I'm not Darwin, I'm a man born in the 20th century, a time when we have science and reason. A time when the church can no longer persecute and murder scientist.

I don't confuse faith in God with faith in the racially biased opinions of Hebrew preachers.

 

[ScottA]

It's very simple, church government tells the people that their writings (or their arrangement of other peoples writings) came from God and you innocently, sincerely, believe them. You have been deeply trained to feel guilty if you question their writings which they convinced you are Gods writings. They created a false, circular dichotomy. It is because they have created the false belief that their writings came from God, they also created a sense of fear and guilt within you that, to question their writings is a lack or failure of faith in God.

So, people of book worship circle the wagons around the errors which others, outside the guilt trip box, can plainly see. You convince yourself mainly that the flimsy defenses of places like AIG or other excruciatingly ridiculous apologetics for the exaggerations of the holy men, are air tight. Group think rules rather than common sense.

The church, having established it's authority to maintain control of it's customers, creates divisions between men. They have you thinking anyone who disagrees with you is evil when in fact it has been the church that has been evil.

I was not trained nor do I feel guilty, but cried out to God and He answered, and took me above the earth and showed me His truth, which I attest is confirmed in His word, the bible. What you have not considered or taken to heart, is God's providence over His word down through history, which no man could do. To consider God so powerless after He has demonstrated His being all powerful...is unbelief.

Here we see the dividing of the goats and the sheep.

 

[KWCrazy]

The above string of quotes, minus insertions of quotes of mine to which parts of your string constitute responses, now seems to clarify for me that you hold to a view of the "days" of Genesis 1 according to what I have known referred to as the "Day-Age" theory, to the effect that the "days" of Genesis 1 refer to ages of unspecified lengths of time, but each longer than a 24 hour day as we know it.

Let's say the days were 10,000 years long, and were an evening and a morning. So in the 10,000 year night, everything created would die. Also, what would make up the evening and morning? For the first 3 days it MAY HAVE BEEN a highly illuminated body buzzing around the earth, but on day 4 the sun was created and the day and morning had to be a single rotation of the earth. If it was then, it stands to reason that it was from the beginning.

People claim that time is allegorical but that never worked for me. When my Mom said to be home by 8:00 and I straggled in about 10:30 she had no compassion for the relativity of the space-time continuum. Rather, she had her own interpretation; as some might call a hyper-literal interpretation of what 8:00 meant. While I might be perfectly fine in accepting the allegory, she insisted that anything that specific could not be ambiguous. Little did I know that my mother was teaching me about Genesis.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The right wingers who killed Jesus because of his Liberal, honest approach to reality, made the same shallow accusations.

Do you really believe I'd a thought you'd see that as anything but shallow? And see what I mean by seeing what you want to see? I speak for Jesus/God and you some how manage to attach me and people like me to the murder of Christ.

.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm not Darwin, I'm a man born in the 20th century, a time when we have science and reason.

Or..

I'm not Darwin, I'm a man born in the 20th century, a time when we have science and reason and we lean to our own understanding...not to the word of God.

This, "we live in the 21st century now and are much smarter than they were back then" has always been an all too common defense by Atheist for their beliefs and is fast catching on for the less shallow Christian.

If the Bible can't be believed in this respect, what part can we believe?...or is that exactly where all this is eventually headed?

 

[rjs330]

Five Proofs of Evolution
Richard Peacock

1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.



2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.



3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.



4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.



5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

The DNA evidence is commonly used as evidence. But again it is not proof. Change the DNA and you have a completely different creature. Similarities in DNA mean nothing unless you want it to. This is what evolution does. Claims of similarity only prove similarity. It does nothing to,prove common ancestry unless you assume or suppose it does. There is no evidence that one creatures DNA has evolved into a completely different creature. Common ancestry is a man created hypothesis based on a belief system not actual science.

The fossil record is another scientific farce. It based on a dating system that is so full holes and errors and assumptions it's insane. There are plenty of examples and conditions that do not match the examples portrayed in evolution. The assumption of evolution is obviously evolving from simple to complex. But that is the assumption. Evolution is a hypothesis and thus it is assumed that life evolved from simple to complex whereas there really is no proof of that. Combine that with the problems with dating and you have a recipe for a huge swing and a,miss.

Common traits in embryos mean nothing unless you want them to. The embryo still has the DNA of the creature Its becoming. A human does not have the DNA of a fish and that DNA changes into a human as it developes. Again evolutionists are looking for anything that they can use to support their theory even though it really is no proof. Similarities and interesting things are not proof. It is ASSUMED it is proof of common ancestor when in reality it is not.

The bacteria once again is not proof. Yes bacteria changes to try and overcome the antibiotics. So? We've all seen the adaptation of creatures as they adapt to their environment to survive. We human beings do that. Bacteria is not a human or a dog or fish or bird. It is a completely different thing. Bacteria does not evolve into anything other than the same bacteria with some differences to survive the antibiotics. It's no,proof that we came from monkeys. Unless one wants to make a,HUGE leap.

I believe God created in six days all life. Birds came before land creatures which directly contradicts evolutionary theory.

God's word is true. Man has been proven over and over to be fallible and faulty. God's word stands the test of time. God is true. He is not a liar. Man is.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

Let's say the days were 10,000 years long, and were an evening and a morning. So in the 10,000 year night, everything created would die. Also, what would make up the evening and morning? For the first 3 days it MAY HAVE BEEN a highly illuminated body buzzing around the earth, but on day 4 the sun was created and the day and morning had to be a single rotation of the earth. If it was then, it stands to reason that it was from the beginning.

People claim that time is allegorical but that never worked for me. When my Mom said to be home by 8:00 and I straggled in about 10:30 she had no compassion for the relativity of the space-time continuum. Rather, she had her own interpretation; as some might call a hyper-literal interpretation of what 8:00 meant. While I might be perfectly fine in accepting the allegory, she insisted that anything that specific could not be ambiguous. Little did I know that my mother was teaching me about Genesis.

Lol that's a great post!

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Here again you make Darwin's point that one must trash the Bible to be honest - if they are going to place their faith in evolutionism. Of course I agree that this is the necessary trade for those who choose belief in evolution - because unlike your book Urantia - the Bible teaches a 7 day creation week "six days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE" Ex 20:8-11

I'm not Darwin, I'm a man born in the 20th century, a time when we have science and reason.

And you say that in response to the note that Darwin also makes your argument - because you think he was a wizard? Or because you think he was wrong - even when he agrees with you?

A time when the church can no longer persecute and murder scientist.

We are not talking about murdering Darwin here - we are just talking about his agreement with you.

I don't confuse faith in God with faith in the racially biased opinions of Hebrew preachers.

And by that you mean "Bible" -- so you have an unbiblical faith - when you speak about faith in God and faith in Urantia book - wouldn't you agree?

My argument is that this is the very sort of thing one would need to "believe in" evolutionism.

With all of its 'lamentable' -- "never happened in nature" examples of hoax and fraud - from horse series to claims about whale evolution.

The very sort of "anti-knowledge" characteristics that its own atheist promoters like Patterson - describe for us.

 

[BobRyan]

Five Proofs of Evolution
Richard Peacock

1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended. .

The Creator invented a genetic code - and associated system for encoding, transmitting, decoding - and error-correcting such that it is beyond our technology to duplicate. And this is proof that "A pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently large and talented pile of dirt -- and a sufficiently long and talented length of time - filled with improbable just-so stories"???

please be serious!

And BTW - those bacteria have been "observed" for 50,000 generations since 1988 and they remain -- bacteria. (Observations in nature - that would simulate more than 2 million years for humans to reach 50,000 generations)

In Romans 1 - Paul says Christians choose to accept rather than reject "observations in nature" -- science. But Paul also says in Romans 1 that non-Christians will often choose to reject what is clearly seen regarding our Creator - in nature - and deny God.

Here is a great example where "observations in nature" merely affirm our belief in the Bible.

"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

Acceptance of real science such as observable biology (as we see in this case) and physics, chemistry, mathematics etc - have strong Bible affirming results as we see in this case.

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The DNA evidence is commonly used as evidence. But again it is not proof. Change the DNA and you have a completely different creature. Similarities in DNA mean nothing unless you want it to. This is what evolution does. Claims of similarity only prove similarity. It does nothing to,prove common ancestry unless you assume or suppose it does. There is no evidence that one creatures DNA has evolved into a completely different creature. Common ancestry is a man created hypothesis based on a belief system not actual science.

The fossil record is another scientific farce. It based on a dating system that is so full holes and errors and assumptions it's insane. There are plenty of examples and conditions that do not match the examples portrayed in evolution. The assumption of evolution is obviously evolving from simple to complex. But that is the assumption. Evolution is a hypothesis and thus it is assumed that life evolved from simple to complex whereas there really is no proof of that. Combine that with the problems with dating and you have a recipe for a huge swing and a,miss.

Common traits in embryos mean nothing unless you want them to. The embryo still has the DNA of the creature Its becoming. A human does not have the DNA of a fish and that DNA changes into a human as it developes. Again evolutionists are looking for anything that they can use to support their theory even though it really is no proof. Similarities and interesting things are not proof. It is ASSUMED it is proof of common ancestor when in reality it is not.

The bacteria once again is not proof. Yes bacteria changes to try and overcome the antibiotics. So? We've all seen the adaptation of creatures as they adapt to their environment to survive. We human beings do that. Bacteria is not a human or a dog or fish or bird. It is a completely different thing. Bacteria does not evolve into anything other than the same bacteria with some differences to survive the antibiotics. It's no,proof that we came from monkeys. Unless one wants to make a,HUGE leap.

I believe God created in six days all life. Birds came before land creatures which directly contradicts evolutionary theory.

God's word is true. Man has been proven over and over to be fallible and faulty. God's word stands the test of time. God is true. He is not a liar. Man is.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

You lack the same proof you claim scientists lack.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

This is true - indeed you have been given just the one talent...and by your own words, you have hid it in the world.

You don't know me and you don't know the extent of my ministry for the Lord and you are therefore guilty of just making stuff up.