As AV wrote, if it contradicts the bible, it's wrong.

Loudmouth · Jan 7, 2008

AV1611VET said:
So if I create and apple into the palm of your hand ex nihilo, and ask you what evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this --- you're SOL - (Sadly Outta Luck).

And yet by the same token, if you say I didn't do it --- you're wrong.

Sadly, we are SOL because you have admitted that a fake history would be embedded in the apple. Still on the Omphalos kick, are we?

Lord Emsworth · Jan 7, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Wow --- I'm impressed! Practicing to be a defender of atheism, are you?

Actually I hardly ever have anything much to defend. The attacks always go somewhere else.

AV1611VET said:
That's pretty good!

You like bananas?

Apart from that ... hmmm ...

Merlin · Jan 7, 2008

Loudmouth said:
The blueprint is not the house. If the blueprints show a wall where none exists in the house, which is wrong? The house or the blueprints?

the house.
see your contractor

Baggins · Jan 7, 2008

Merlin said:
the house.
see your contractor

Wasn't god the contractor?

Merlin · Jan 7, 2008

Baggins said:
Wasn't god the contractor?

If we are talking God vs. a house, then you likely read the blueprints wrong.

Lord Emsworth · Jan 7, 2008

Merlin said:
the house.
see your contractor

Here is the link:
www.fundiebibleinterpretation.com

TheBear · Jan 7, 2008

If the contractor reads the blueprints wrong, the building won't be to specs. But the finished building is the reality of it. If a wall was true east and west in the drawings, but ended up northeast to southwest in actual construction, the building is the reality of the final product, not the initial intentions.

Soul Searcher · Jan 7, 2008

Archer93 said:
I can see two glaring contraditions.
Geneisis 1 says that the heavens and the earth were made on separate days. Genesis 2 says that they were both made on the same day.

Genesis 1 puts the order of creation as plants-animals-man and woman at the same time.
Genesis 2 has plants first again, then man-animals-woman.

I see two problems in your take on this chapter.

1:Genesis 2 may appear to say plants were created before man at first glance but it actually says they were created after man. It does mention plants but says before it was in the earth and makes a point to also mention that it had not yet rained and there was no man to till the soil then comes man and then out of the ground came every tree and so on.

Yes it does contradict the order of events in Gen 1 where man was last in one and first in the other

2:The conclusion about made on the same day is incorrect. The passage says in the day but this is not referring to a literal 24 time period but rather just a point in time, like back in the day for example. Notice there is no other mention of any time line here so it seems rather clear that this was not intended to mean that these things took place on literally the same day.

Also Gen 1 indicates that the heavens and the earth were made in the begining, by some accounts on the first day but that is a matter of interpretation. It does not say they were made on different days, though it does say the sun, moon and starts were all made later.

Lord Emsworth · Jan 7, 2008

Soul Searcher said:
Also Gen 1 indicates that the heavens and the earth were made in the begining, by some accounts on the first day but that is a matter of interpretation.

Of course some people may interpret it that way, but in my opinion this misses out on much of the actual structure of the text.

If you take a look at the days two through six of the creation week you will see that each day is bracketed by almost the very same phrases.

Each day starts with:

God said, "_________"

And ends with:

And there was evening and there was morning, the _____ day.

And this does not only hold true for days two through six, it also holds true for the verses in Gen 1:3-5. Which leads to the obvious conclusion that these verses narrate what happen on the first day, and that what comes before or after does not belong here.

But that is only the first argument. The second argument is that the days of the first half of the creation week correspond to the days of the second half of the creation week. The first half of the creation week is for forming, and the second for filling it up with inhabitants:

Code:

[COLOR="Purple"]Formation cycle[/COLOR]  || [COLOR="Teal"]Population cycle[/COLOR]
=======================================
[COLOR="Purple"]Day[/COLOR] | [COLOR="DarkRed"]Light and[/COLOR]  || [COLOR="Teal"]Day[/COLOR] | [COLOR="DarkRed"]Sun,[/COLOR]
 [COLOR="Purple"]1[/COLOR]  | [COLOR="DarkRed"]darkness[/COLOR]   ||  [COLOR="Teal"]4[/COLOR]  | [COLOR="DarkRed"]moon & stars[/COLOR]
---------------------------------------
[COLOR="Purple"]Day[/COLOR] | [COLOR="Navy"]waters and[/COLOR] || [COLOR="Teal"]Day[/COLOR] | [COLOR="Navy"]Fish and[/COLOR]
 [COLOR="Purple"]2[/COLOR]  | [COLOR="Navy"]sky[/COLOR]        ||  [COLOR="Teal"]5[/COLOR]  | [COLOR="Navy"]birds[/COLOR]
---------------------------------------
[COLOR="Purple"]Day[/COLOR] | [COLOR="DarkGreen"]land (with[/COLOR] || [COLOR="Teal"]Day[/COLOR] | [COLOR="DarkGreen"]Animals and[/COLOR]
 [COLOR="Purple"]3[/COLOR]  | [COLOR="DarkGreen"]vegetation)[/COLOR]||  [COLOR="Teal"]6[/COLOR]  | [COLOR="DarkGreen"]people[/COLOR]

(I found this neat ascii grphic on some other messageboard, and cannot resist to use it here.)

And again this structure that is found in the text will be broken if you interpret "the heavens and the earth" from Gen 1:1 as belonging to the first day.

Rather Gen 1:1 is to be read as a summay statement referring to the whole creation week. And it doesn't really matter that much if you stick to either the reading used in the NRSV ("In the beginning when God created ...the earth was a formless void... .") or YLT which renders Gen 1:1 as a dependent clause, or if you stick to the independent clause used in the KJV ("In the beginning God created ... .") or NIV.

(Incidentally this means there is no ex-nihilo in Gen 1:1-2:4a, as Gen 1:2 describes the chaotic, pre-creation state.)

Soul Searcher said:
It does not say they were made on different days, though it does say the sun, moon and starts were all made later.

Well, it does say that the heavens were made on the second day (Gen 1:8) and the earth on the third day (Gen 1:10).

Wyzaard · Jan 7, 2008

AV1611VET said:
We know blueprints when we see them --- and Genesis 1 is a perfect set of blueprints.

We do? They are? Explain.

Remove the first 11 chapters of Genesis, and the rest of the Bible makes no sense.

Unless you interpret Genesis as a work dealing with figurative spiritual matters, and not physical ones. Lots of christians hold scientific models for an old earth and evolution whiloe being born-again.

Soul Searcher · Jan 7, 2008

Lord Emsworth said:
Of course some people may interpret it that way, but in my opinion this misses out on much of the actual structure of the text.

I have a little different take on it than most. To me it is saying that in the begining God created the heavens and the earth. Without indication of when this was nor how long it took.

Well, it does say that the heavens were made on the second day (Gen 1:8) and the earth on the third day (Gen 1:10).

It does say that he created the firmament and called it heaven, Should this be considered to be the heavens spoke of earlier or simply the sky above planet earth.?

It also says that he gathered together the waters into one place so that dry land appeared and he called that dry land earth, This should not be cofused as meaning the planet earth but earth as in soil instead.

Everything here seems to be written from the perspective of earth the land, the water, the sky[heaven] space [the heavens] the stars sun and moon. The evening and the morning and so on.

It doesn't make a lot of sense given what we now know about the earth, the solar system and life in general unless we look at it as written by a primative people who knew very little of these things.

tanzanos · Jan 8, 2008

AV1611VET said:
You don't get it, do you, Thaumaturgy? It's supposed to fail within the confines of a science discussion.

And by failing scientifically, it substantiates what I've been saying all along: there's no such thing as Creation Science.

So if I create and apple into the palm of your hand ex nihilo, and ask you what evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this --- you're SOL - (Sadly Outta Luck).

And yet by the same token, if you say I didn't do it --- you're wrong.

AV1. Your apple challenge has been refuted countless times. I proved to you that you did not created the apple. You failed to acknowledge my proof because you CANNOT refute it!

Sorry but there are times when humbleness is a virtue (required by Christianity) and is the mark of a wise man! Your arrogance will get you nowhere.

HappyCat · Jan 8, 2008

Not that it will make any difference to AV, but

"The word of God is the creation we behold ... It is only in the creation that all our ideals and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The creation speaketh an universal language, independently of human speech, or human language, multiplied and various as they be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God."

"Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible whole is governed. Do we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the abundance with which he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? We see it in his not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful. In fine, do we want to know what God is? Search not the book called the Scripture, which any human hand might make, but the Scripture called the creation"

Thomas Paine: The Age of Reason

Beautifully put.

AV1611VET · Jan 8, 2008

HappyCat said:
Not that it will make any difference to AV, but

"The word of God is the creation we behold ... It is only in the creation that all our ideals and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The creation speaketh an universal language, independently of human speech, or human language, multiplied and various as they be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God."

"Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible whole is governed. Do we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the abundance with which he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? We see it in his not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful. In fine, do we want to know what God is? Search not the book called the Scripture, which any human hand might make, but the Scripture called the creation"

Thomas Paine: The Age of Reason

Beautifully put.

You're right, HappyCat. Junk like this makes no difference to me. This post is an excellent reason why I so dislike most other people's reflections on reality.

Archer93 · Jan 8, 2008

How is it junk?
I personally would argue against the idea that nature is unchanging, but what, essentially, is wrong with the idea that the best way to find out about creation is to LOOK at it?

Is a book which needs to be tweaked and edited and commentated and interpreted and above all TRANSLATED from its original format really more reliable than the physical reality of that which the book claims to describe?

You are declaring that your ex nihilo apple is red, because that's what your book says, but everyone looking at it is telling you that it's green.

Wiccan_Child · Jan 8, 2008

Archer93 said:
How is it junk?
I personally would argue against the idea that nature is unchanging, but what, essentially, is wrong with the idea that the best way to find out about creation is to LOOK at it?

Is a book which needs to be tweaked and edited and commentated and interpreted and above all TRANSLATED from its original format really more reliable than the physical reality of that which the book claims to describe?

You are declaring that your ex nihilo apple is red, because that's what your book says, but everyone looking at it is telling you that it's green.

It's because AV works under the a priori assumption that the AV1611 KJV is 100% inerrant. If reality disagrees with his Bible, then reality is wrong. In theory, if God disagrees with his Bible, then God is wrong.

It is an absurd and indefensible position, but alas one we cannot refute. Just relegate it to the realm of dad's split hypothesis, or Russel's teapot.

HappyCat · Jan 8, 2008

As I expected, a thoughtful, well-expressed and convincing argument dismissed as junk by AV! I'm no expert, but isn't pride a sin? I've never come across a sensible Christian response to The Age of Reason. I'm not going to get one (even of two paragraphs) here, am I?

thaumaturgy · Jan 8, 2008

HappyCat said:
As I expected, a thoughtful, well-expressed and convincing argument dismissed as junk by AV!

Yup.

I'm no expert, but isn't pride a sin?

Yes. Yes it is. But sins that feel good to the sinner are the last ones the sinner will give up.

I've never come across a sensible Christian response to The Age of Reason. I'm not going to get one (even of two paragraphs) here, am I?

Nope. You're not. Not here at least.

I am fascinated by fundamentalists because they seem actively intent on deconstructing the sum total of human efforts at philosophy, logic and science. Fundamentalism of any sort only thrives where thought is extinguished. And what could be a bigger "thought killer" than to unilaterally decree one translation of one book of unknown provenance is the final arbiter of reality?

AV1611VET · Jan 8, 2008

Archer93 said:
How is it junk?

Well, I wouldn't expect a pagan to fully understand, but this is one of the remarks that stood out to me as blasphemy:

Thomas Paine said:
...do we want to know what God is? Search not the book called the Scripture, which any human hand might make, but the Scripture called the creation.

That is just so wrong on multiple levels:

"What" God is?
"Search not the book called the Scripture"?
[especially this doosey] "Which any human hand might make"?

When I first read this, the first thing that came to mind as I was reading it was the fact that David said basically the same thing:

[bible]Psalm 8:3[/bible]

So I thought Paine was about to come to the same conclusion:

[bible]Psalm 8:4[/bible]

But got knocked for a loop by his blasphemous conclusion.

I'm not too popular here for pointing out that the Bible exposes atheism as a form of worship, but a poster about a month ago posted something Einstein said that supports that fact, as does this post from Thomas Paine.

How is it, Archer, that Thomas Paine looked at the same thing David looked at, and drew the opposite conclusion?

As David concluded:

[bible]Psalm 8:9[/bible]

To look at it another way:

Thomas Paine said:
Search not the book called the Scripture...

Acts 17:11 said:
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

AV1611VET · Jan 8, 2008

Wiccan_Child said:
It's because AV works under the a priori assumption that the AV1611 KJV is 100% inerrant. If reality disagrees with his Bible, then reality is wrong. In theory, if God disagrees with his Bible, then God is wrong.

It is an absurd and indefensible position, but alas one we cannot refute. Just relegate it to the realm of dad's split hypothesis, or Russel's teapot.

WC, to be honest, comparing this answer to my answer I just posted is like comparing a born-again Christian to a pagan.

As AV wrote, if it contradicts the bible, it's wrong.

Contributor

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

Paradigm Buster

Senior Veteran

Paradigm Buster

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

NON-WOKED

The kingdom is within

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

Well-Known Member

The kingdom is within

tanzanos

Guest

2000 light years from home

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

Contributor

2000 light years from home

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency