Bible-Creation-Evolution

Nathan Poe · Feb 21, 2011

gipsy said:
Sometimes I really think that since becoming an atheist I understand god better than before ... I just don't believe in the concept any more ...

Because you're not dogmatically bound to any one particular creed or interpretation -- you're free to examine the concepts, as they are presented, critically, and ask the questions that many "believers" are afraid to address.

Anyhow, if I'd still believe in it, I'd think that a god setting all these fantastical natural processes in motion while from the beginning on planning to create me some 13 billions of years later ... WOW ... this really would be a being I'd call God ... not some white bearded old man sitting somewhere above me, constantly fixing his own errors by mass murdering innocent people and animals, like it's described in the bible ...

Indeed -- a God who operates via evolution comes across as patient, confident, and secure in His work -- not as a ham-handed bungler who needs instant results, can't get it done without micromanaging ad nauseam, and wipes the slate clean if everything is not just so.

Nathan Poe · Feb 21, 2011

1611AV said:
That exactly huh? You heard a story written by men. there are literally millions of stories written by men. Try actually reading the Bible.

We heard a story... thats good.

Yep -- the Bible is a book. Men wrote the book. And of the literally hundreds of stories written by men, literally thousands of them are about gods. You chose to believe one over the others.

So what?

Actually you don't become a Atheist, if you don't believe in God, then you always were a Atheist and you still have the same understanding of God.
None!

Can you lay off the hysterics long enough to even try to deny anything said here?

If you understood that God is Eternal then you would understand that to God 13 billion years and a few days are all the same to him.

Ok... duh. What does that have to do with anything?

You don't need to mock God.

So who's mocking God? We read a book about God. So did you.

We think the book is an interesting collection of history, wisdom literature, and mythology. You accuse us of mocking God.

Care to explain that?

Nathan Poe · Feb 21, 2011

dad said:
The Living God, Jesus, God of the bible..etc

The one with the magical flying sapphire throne, right, dad?

Or are you suddenly embarrassed by your own theology? (not that you shouldn't be)

1611AV · Feb 21, 2011

Nathan Poe said:
The one with the magical flying sapphire throne, right, dad?

Or are you suddenly embarrassed by your own theology? (not that you shouldn't be)

Nathan Poe said:
So who's mocking God? We read a book about God. So did you.

We think the book is an interesting collection of history, wisdom literature, and mythology. You accuse us of mocking God.

Care to explain that?

You do a good enough job at explaining it yourself.

Nathan Poe · Feb 21, 2011

1611AV said:
You do a good enough job at explaining it yourself.

You've never debated with dad, I see -- one of his more amusing positions is that the star of Bethlehem is none other than the actual quasi-physical form of God, hovering over the Baby Jesus in (I kid you not) a flying throne made out of sapphires.

Are you saying that holding such a belief is not "mockery" but calling someone out on it is?

1611AV · Feb 21, 2011

Nathan Poe said:
You've never debated with dad, I see -- one of his more amusing positions is that the star of Bethlehem is none other than the actual quasi-physical form of God, hovering over the Baby Jesus in (I kid you not) a flying throne made out of sapphires.

Are you saying that holding such a belief is not "mockery" but calling someone out on it is?

If what you are saying is true, then I will tell you, (the star of Bethlehem is none other than the actual quasi-physical form of God, hovering over the Baby Jesus in a flying throne made out of sapphires.)
is NOT Biblical.

Nathan Poe · Feb 21, 2011

1611AV said:
If what you are saying is true, then I will tell you, (the star of Bethlehem is none other than the actual quasi-physical form of God, hovering over the Baby Jesus in a flying throne made out of sapphires.)
is NOT Biblical.

I pretty much had that figured as well -- hence the mockery.

AV1611VET · Feb 21, 2011

1611AV said:
If what you are saying is true, then I will tell you, (the star of Bethlehem is none other than the actual quasi-physical form of God, hovering over the Baby Jesus in a flying throne made out of sapphires.)
is NOT Biblical.

What Nathan didn't tell you, of course, was dad's justification for this interpretation.

I can't remember it all, but basically dad believes that God visited Ezekiel in some sort of vehicle -- a 'mobile throne' -- if I'm not mistaken.

Ezekiel 1:26 ¶ And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.

Ezekiel 10:1 ¶ Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne.

My personal belief is that the Star of Bethlehem was a hologram that only the Wise Men could see.

Nathan Poe · Feb 21, 2011

AV1611VET said:
What Nathan didn't tell you, of course, was dad's justification for this interpretation.

I can't remember it all, but basically dad believes that God visited Ezekiel in some sort of vehicle -- a 'mobile throne' -- if I'm not mistaken.

Ezekiel 1:26 ¶ And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.

Ezekiel 10:1 ¶ Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne.

-- which dad, in turn, extrapolated from in order to explain the "star of Bethlehem"

But that's dad's theology; let's let him explain it if he so chooses to.

My personal belief is that the Star of Bethlehem was a hologram that only the Wise Men could see.

Perhaps it wasn't a star at all? Could it have been an apparition of Dean Stockwell?

AV1611VET · Feb 21, 2011

Nathan Poe said:
Perhaps it wasn't a star at all?

Either that, or it was.

That's like asking Ezekiel --

Ezekiel 8:16 And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.

-- perhaps it wasn't the Temple at all?

1611AV · Feb 21, 2011

AV1611VET said:
What Nathan didn't tell you, of course, was dad's justification for this interpretation.

I can't remember it all, but basically dad believes that God visited Ezekiel in some sort of vehicle -- a 'mobile throne' -- if I'm not mistaken.

Ezekiel 1:26 ¶ And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.

Ezekiel 10:1 ¶ Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne.

My personal belief is that the Star of Bethlehem was a hologram that only the Wise Men could see.

Hence the "( )" in my reply to Nathan. I've never spoke with dad or read his posts regarding this so I didn't take it to heart.

Matthew 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

Matthew 2:7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

No ordinary Star..

elopez · Feb 21, 2011

1611AV,

The event of separating light from dark occurs on day one and again on day four. That is the event I am talking about that is the same. Light was already contrasted on day one, and for the same event to occur, no matter the process or what else happened, it is the same event. This shouldn't be so hard to comprehend.

I admit I use that term too loosely at times. By ancients I meant those who composed the Hebrew word yom and how they observed and measured days. In the sense of a 24 hour day it denotes the observation of the sunrise to the sunset, or the sunset to the next sunset. To say that the sun was not needed for days to transpire while the Hebrew word for day is understood as in correlation with the earth and the sun, it is again to undermine the original word yom.

So we are not to interpret the Bible yet just a few pages back you said that our beliefs should be based on scripture, and for that to be done we must interpret it. But if this matter is not understood by carnal man then how can your position of creationism hold any more weight than mine of evolution?

1611AV · Feb 21, 2011

elopez said:
1611AV,

The event of separating light from dark occurs on day one and again on day four. That is the event I am talking about that is the same. Light was already contrasted on day one, and for the same event to occur, no matter the process or what else happened, it is the same event. This shouldn't be so hard to comprehend.

I admit I use that term too loosely at times. By ancients I meant those who composed the Hebrew word yom and how they observed and measured days. In the sense of a 24 hour day it denotes the observation of the sunrise to the sunset, or the sunset to the next sunset. To say that the sun was not needed for days to transpire while the Hebrew word for day is understood as in correlation with the earth and the sun, it is again to undermine the original word yom.

So we are not to interpret the Bible yet just a few pages back you said that our beliefs should be based on scripture, and for that to be done we must interpret it. But if this matter is not understood by carnal man then how can your position of creationism hold any more weight than mine of evolution?

Maybe VET can help here. I see what you are saying about the contrast but I just don't get the point you are trying to make. Maybe you are not trying to make a point. Sorry.

Naraoia · Feb 21, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Ezekiel 10:1 ¶ Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne.

Cherubims? Isn't that like childrens?

AV1611VET · Feb 21, 2011

1611AV said:
Maybe VET can help here.

I'll give it a try, bro --

elopez said:
1611AV,

The event of separating light from dark occurs on day one and again on day four. That is the event I am talking about that is the same. Light was already contrasted on day one, and for the same event to occur, no matter the process or what else happened, it is the same event. This shouldn't be so hard to comprehend.

Light was first created -- in transit -- then the source of the light, viz. the stars, was created.

Light, of course, isn't needed to calculate a day -- the rotation of the earth would do just fine.

Thus saying, 'The evening and the morning were the first day', when as yet the sun didn't exist, is still an appropriate expression.

AV1611VET · Feb 21, 2011

Naraoia said:
Cherubims? Isn't that like childrens?

Childrens what? I don't understand your question.

Naraoia · Feb 21, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Childrens what? I don't understand your question.

I thought "cherubim" was already plural. It's the grammar nazi in me coming out again :o

AV1611VET · Feb 21, 2011

Naraoia said:
I thought "cherubim" was already plural. It's the grammar nazi in me coming out again :o

Ah! Got it!

Nathan Poe · Feb 21, 2011

elopez said:
1611AV,

The event of separating light from dark occurs on day one and again on day four. That is the event I am talking about that is the same. Light was already contrasted on day one, and for the same event to occur, no matter the process or what else happened, it is the same event. This shouldn't be so hard to comprehend.

Well, the thing to remember is that the Genesis story follows an Egyptian creation myth, which also begins with light at the beginning of creation -- that light was an attribute of the Sun God Atum, but not the Sun itself. So the Egyptian myth has to have two instances of light: One for the Sun God, and a later one for the Sun itself.

The Hebrews copied this myth, but being monotheistic, left out the part about the first light being separate from the later source of the light (the only source that the Hebrews needed) -- hence the redundancy.

I'll admit, I'm oversimplifying, but you get the idea.

Nathan Poe · Feb 21, 2011

AV1611VET said:
I'll give it a try, bro --

Light was first created -- in transit -- then the source of the light, viz. the stars, was created.

Light, of course, isn't needed to calculate a day -- the rotation of the earth would do just fine.

Thus saying, 'The evening and the morning were the first day', when as yet the sun didn't exist, is still an appropriate expression.

Except that all motion is relative -- the rotation of the Earth wouldn't mean anything to anyone without another object in the sky by which to measure it. Having "evening" and "morning" without a Sun and a moon -- to say nothing about without light -- is literalistic nonsense.

Bible-Creation-Evolution

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.

Well-Known Member

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.

Well-Known Member

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.

Apprentice Biologist

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Apprentice Biologist

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency