Creation Story: Did God lie?

Great job in summarizing those points.

I lean toward cyclic cosmology. While I think there was indeed a pretty big bang, it was not the start of all, just the start of the universe's current cycle. From that perspective, the universe is ageless, and time is immaterial.

Time is an interested concept. I doubt we humans have the capacity for thought required to understand the fullness of the concept of time and how it relates to the universe. If there is a God (I lean toward not), time is likely not an issue for such a being.

The earth is very old, and the universe is much, much older. A young earth, or even not-real-old-earth, simply doesn’t fit the overwhelming observable evidence.

One could easily say that an all-powerful supernatural being could make the effort to create an old appearing universe… but to what end and why?
 
Upvote 0

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
NOTE: Theyre here's original post is in regular font, while Sinai's response is in boldface.

Great job in summarizing those points.

I lean toward cyclic cosmology. While I think there was indeed a pretty big bang, it was not the start of all, just the start of the universe's current cycle. From that perspective, the universe is ageless, and time is immaterial.

Although a minority position at the present time, you can find several scientists--including a few who are rather well known--who hold similar views.

Time is an interested concept. I doubt we humans have the capacity for thought required to understand the fullness of the concept of time and how it relates to the universe. If there is a God (I lean toward not), time is likely not an issue for such a being.

I believe there is a God, but agree that time (and other dimensions that limit us, for that matter) does not appear to be an issue for Him, nor does it appear to limit Him.

The earth is very old, and the universe is much, much older. A young earth, or even not-real-old-earth, simply doesn’t fit the overwhelming observable evidence.

I tend to agree.

One could easily say that an all-powerful supernatural being could make the effort to create an old appearing universe… but to what end and why?

You'll have to ask someone who believes that theory. Perhaps someone reading this does believe that, and will answer the question.
 
Upvote 0

Thunderchild

Sheep in Wolf's clothing
Jan 5, 2002
1,542
1
68
Adelaide
Visit site
✟3,180.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Isaac Asimov once wrote a very interesting and very short story.... In synopsis, it goes something like this.

It all began millions of years ago
Who says?
HE says
Oh, that's all right then. You want me to write a full account?
That's right
Why?
HE says it has to be right
No way - it would take more papyrus and vellum than anyone could get ... not to mention ink
But it has to be written up properly.
How could we possibly cart all that writing material with us, how will we find time to write it, what with everything else we have to do, it would take years
Oh very well..."In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth..."
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by tycho


The sad twist of irony is that there were no roads yet. The opossums were safe to cross since there was no death yet, but there were no roads to cross. Oh the humanity!!!

I can see the family arguments now as mom opossum teaches junior the basics of self defense...

"Play *what*, mom?"
 
Upvote 0

Thunderchild

Sheep in Wolf's clothing
Jan 5, 2002
1,542
1
68
Adelaide
Visit site
✟3,180.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. (lest=for fear that)

And indeed the serpent spoke the truth - "ye shall not surely die"

According to the account, IF Adam and Eve had eaten of the fruit of the tree of life after they ate of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they would not have died.

Is it possible that there is another verse or passage in which God makes the claim that Adam and Eve would surely die?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I've discussed this point in other forums and am curious about the opinions here.

If we examine the fable of Eden, we discover an interesting observation. God seems to have lied, and the serpent seems to have told the truth. God told Adam and Eve: (Genesis 3:3) “But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die .” And the serpent responded: (Genesis 3:4) “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die .” Well, as the story goes, we know they both ate the fruit, and did not die.
That's because they died spiritually, not physically.
One would believe he was speaking to Adam's frame of reference regarding days, not God's.
It's obvious to anyone reading Genesis 3 that he died some other way than physically.

Else God wouldn't have said this to Eve:

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;

In fact, if you read what God said to each one of them, you'll see God spoke to them as if they were going to live for a long time afterwards.

Only an educated person would accuse God of lying, because he only thinks unilaterally.

Don't be like a modern-day Sadducee, denying a spiritual world ...

Acts 23:8a For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit:

... or you'll end up thinking the story is a fable.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Resurrections bother you guys, don't they?
Resurrecting old threads (this one was dead for 15 years!) is generally considered poor netiquette, and consequently such a post is called a 'necropost'.

Sometimes it's done by trolls just to bump dead threads up the list, but I suspect the main objection is that people just don't expect it, and can find themselves reading or replying to ancient comments with no likelihood of a response from posters who may be long gone. In general, it's considered better to start a new thread and - if necessary - link to or refer to the old one. YMMV.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Resurrecting old threads (this one was dead for 15 years!) is generally considered poor netiquette, and consequently such a post is called a 'necropost'.

Sometimes it's done by trolls just to bump dead threads up the list, but I suspect the main objection is that people just don't expect it, and can find themselves reading or replying to ancient comments with no likelihood of a response from posters who may be long gone. In general, it's considered better to start a new thread and - if necessary - link to or refer to the old one. YMMV.
How should this thread be handled then?
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
That's because they died spiritually, not physically.
It's obvious to anyone reading Genesis 3 that he died some other way than physically.

Else God wouldn't have said this to Eve:

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;

In fact, if you read what God said to each one of them, you'll see God spoke to them as if they were going to live for a long time afterwards.

Only an educated person would accuse God of lying, because he only thinks unilaterally.

Don't be like a modern-day Sadducee, denying a spiritual world ...

Acts 23:8a For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit:

... or you'll end up thinking the story is a fable.
upload_2017-6-30_14-13-31.png
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

Aryeh Jay

Gone and hopefully forgotten.
Supporter
Jul 19, 2012
15,312
14,321
MI - Michigan
✟498,114.00
Country
United States
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
How should this thread be handled then?

I suppose that there are two ways to handle it.

One would be to reply to the post soon after it was made, but since this thread died four years before you joined that would have been impossible.

The second would be to see if the person you are replying to is still an active member, but since the poster has not logged on since 2002, it is unlikely that they have been eagerly checking their email waiting for a response for the last 15 years. Actually, of the original thread participants, only Joseph is still here, the others have been gone a long time.

At least it adds to the post count…
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
* thread necromancer *
That's nice.

Do you care to address my point, or do you want to display some fake indignation?

Do you think the OP is the only one on earth who wonders why Adam & Eve didn't drop dead before the sun went down?

This site is crawling with users of the scientific method who, I'm sure, would just love to have this matter settled in their minds.

Are you going to deny them the answer, just to be able to hit someone over the head with netiquette?

Also, why is the QUOTE button working?

Is it to bait us?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Do you care to address my point, or do you want to display some fake indignation?

Nope.

I only care to point out how thread necromancy ruins forums.

If you have a point to be made you deem important enough and there is no currently active thread appropriate, then create a new thread instead of resurecting one that's been dead for 15 years.

Also, one can wonder how you even ended up on a thread in the archive that was already dead for 4 years before you even joined the forum.
And it's not the first time you did this. One would almost suspect that you do it on purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The second would be to see if the person you are replying to is still an active member,
Do you really think I was replying to the person who made this thread?

I mean ... seriously?

You can't be that naïve.

A thread might "die" ... whatever that means ... but the information goes on and on.

I'll bet you wouldn't think twice about quoting Charles Darwin, would you?

And his "thread" (The Preservation of Favoured Races) is much older than this one.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I only care to point out how thread necromancy ruins forums.
Ya ... please do tell me how ruined this forum is.

I'll wait.
DogmaHunter said:
If you have a point to be made you deem important enough and there is no currently active thread appropriate, then create a new thread instead of resurecting one that's been dead for 15 years.
You do it your way, and I'll do it mine.

How's that?
DogmaHunter said:
Also, one can wonder how you even ended up on a thread in the archive that was already dead for 4 years before you even joined the forum.
I've posted in threads here dated 1969, so comparatively speaking, this is still fresh.
DogmaHunter said:
And it's not the first time you did this.
And it won't be my last either, if I can help it.
DogmaHunter said:
One would almost suspect that you do it on purpose.
You bet I do.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Do you really think I was replying to the person who made this thread?

I mean ... seriously?

You can't be that naïve.

Well you were quoting them and responding to what they typed. A likely alternative is that you are just attention seeking though.

A thread might "die" ... whatever that means ... but the information goes on and on.

I'll bet you wouldn't think twice about quoting Charles Darwin, would you?

And his "thread" (The Preservation of Favoured Races) is much older than this one.

Definitely the latter.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aryeh Jay

Gone and hopefully forgotten.
Supporter
Jul 19, 2012
15,312
14,321
MI - Michigan
✟498,114.00
Country
United States
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Do you really think I was replying to the person who made this thread?

I mean ... seriously?

You can't be that naïve.

A thread might "die" ... whatever that means ... but the information goes on and on.

I'll bet you wouldn't think twice about quoting Charles Darwin, would you?

And his "thread" (The Preservation of Favoured Races) is much older than this one.

I’m sorry, even though you may think I was replying to you because I quoted your post, I was not. Don’t be so naive in the future. Seriously…
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0