Can we take Genesis Seriously

[solarwave]

This kind of explains the whole "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over..."
In Gen 2 God creates his own race (thus why the Jewish people are his chosen people) and his own animals (make the whole naming job a lot easier for Adam, he was only naming a few animals that were in the garden of Eden, not every animal on earth)
Also explains why God say's "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
Finally, it accounts for where the heck Cain's wife came from.
You could conceivably consolidate it even more with traditional christian teaching by saying that the other "gods" were in fact what went on to become angels, subservient to God, it's just that God had help in the creation event, in fact, the NIV study Bible that I have sitting next to me right now say's that the plurals used when God is talking at various points in Genesis refers to his "heavenly court".

So maybe it's heresy, but I think it does a much better job explaining Genesis than the traditional christian interpretation.

Its an interesting idea. I can say I agree with it, but I'll think about it.

'Made in our image' can also be understood as the trinity talking.

According to wikipedia "Within Hebrew, it is morphologically a plural, in use both as a true plural with the meaning "angels, gods, rulers" and as a "plural intensive" with singular meaning, referring to a god or goddess, and especially to the single God of Israel."

So it isn't necessary to assume there are many Gods.

In the Commandments where it says "you shall have no other" is in no way clear that there are other gods. It could be many times more clear since believing in a non-existant god would still count as having another god, and anything that is your top priority is your god.

Saying all that, its an interesting idea I will think about.

 

[Wedjat]

'Made in our image' can also be understood as the trinity talking.
So it isn't necessary to assume there are many Gods.

Yeah, but the different races of man is icing on the cake, and applying the trinitarian figurehead to explain the "us-our...etc" drops the order of the two stories right back in your lap and fixes it back into the standard school of thought, and that's just no fun

But anyway, yeah, it's just interesting to explore as many different avenues of thought as possible.

 

[solarwave]

Yeah, but when you start going into wild and wonderful understandings of things it does tend to complecate things between you and your church lol.

For example I know only one or two other people in my church who believe in God and evolution. It may not seem like much but it does make a difference having a church who doesn't make sense of the whole evidence avaliable.

 

[Wedjat]

:/ sorry to hear that.

 

[solarwave]

lol thanks, just a small little 'rant'

 

[Mela Monkey]

Well I've never heard that, frankly it seems a bit conspiracy theory-ish. But a source would certainly be interesting.

Sorry for the extremely late response! I finally found where I read that stuff..

Click Here

Plz tell me if the link doesn't work

Also..
Many of the things in this article may be biased, but there does seem to be at least a little bit of scientific evidence.

 

[Wedjat]

Alright, lets start at the beginning.

Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.

Completely correct, so why I wonder, understanding that carbon dating would go haywire as it's being applied incorrectly would these people carbon date a dinosaur bone? The answer is right there on the webpage.

"We didn't tell them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones. The result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples."

Before that he complains

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

Wait... but didn't he just say that it was a blind test? I suspect the real reason they threw them out was the freaking wonky results, he seems to completely ignore the fact that sample A was dated at 9,890 years and sample B was 16,120, this is what happens when you carbon date things that aren't meant to be carbon dated, you get weird, inconsistent results, which is exactly what happened. Not only that, but he tricked them and twisted the results to meet his own ends, while claiming that they were doing the same, this is pure, unadulterated, intellectual dishonesty. What makes it worse for him is that carbon dating actually has very good reason to be considered accurate well over 300 years, actually more like 30,000.
I'd invite you to read this on carbon dating (it's 3 pages long just focusing on carbon dating, so don't forget to click next a couple of times) because not only does it present some of the reasons C14 dating is accurate but it refutes a few more of the claims on this site (I'd point you to the 1/3 of 30,000 years bit, right at the begining), along with some others you may have heard. You can read up on a lot more things on that site as well, it's quite a good resource.

Sorry for a bit of a rant, don't mind me if I sound crazed, I haven't slept in 30 hours.
Happy hunting

 

[Wedjat]

Yes, that is a rather common misconception. In colloquial terms the word theory means an educated guess, but in scientific terms it is an explanation that has been supported by empirical evidence and is consistently verified through observation and experimentation. In science, theory is the pinnacle achievement for any explanation, it is supported by all the evidence, and refuted by none. When evidence comes along that refutes a theory, the theory is either changed to accomidate the evidence, thus improving its accuracy, or if the theory cannot conform to the new evidence, it is sacked in favor of a better one.
Now some people might think "no, law is the pinical of achievement, not theory" but they are mistaken, as laws and theories do different things. Laws explain what happens, theories describe how.
Take the laws of gravity. Newton explained how gravitational force can be calculated, and what effects different bodies of mass had on each other in his laws of gravity, but even he admitted he had no idea why it happened. That's where Einsteins theory of gravity comes in, as it explains how exactly the effects of gravity occur (the presence of matter warps space time to create gravitational troughs which draw other objects into it).
This is the difference between laws and theories.

 

[RobertMerton]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]At the University of Maine in Orono a student went running through the crowd crying out, "Science disproves the existence of God. Science disproves the existence of God." I asked, 'What are you talking about?" He said, 'You know, evolution. Evolution is a proven fact. Evolution disproves the existence of God."

Evolution as an explanation of the origin of life is not a proven fact; it is a philosophy, a theory. But evolution as a description of a certain natural process in nature has much evidence supporting it. There are many Christian scientists and professors who believe in evolution as an accurate account of how some animals adapt to radiation, climate and topography. But they do not accept it as an explanation of how life began.

The book of Genesis seeks to answer two questions concerning the origin of the world. The first is, Who created? The answer is clear in the opening verse of the book "In the beginning God" (Gen 1:1)-not "In the beginning hydrogen," not "In the beginning randomness."Rather, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The second question is, Why did God create? The Scriptures clearly reveal that God created human beings in his own image for the purpose of living in a deep love relationship with God and in deep love relationships with each other.

The book of Genesis does not seek to answer the question of how God created. I do not know how God created. No one does. It is entirely possible that God used the process of evolution to some extent to create life. Science is concerned about the observation and classification of facts. Science deals with natural processes. Genesis says nothing about these. I am grateful that the authors of the books in the Bible refrain from forcing into the text their scientific prejudice.

There is a story from The London Observer illustrates the frailty of our understanding. A family of mice lived in a grand piano. They enjoyed listening to the music that came from the great player who they never saw, but who they believed in, because they enjoyed the music that came from the piano. One day one of the little mice got especially brave. He climbed deep into the bowels of the piano. He made an astonishing discovery. The music did not come from a great player; rather, the music came from wires that reverberated back and forth. The little mouse returned to his family tremendously excited.He informed his family that there was no great player who made the piano music; rather, there were these little wires that reverberated back and forth. The family of mice abandoned their belief in a great piano player.Instead they had a totally mechanistic view.

One day another one of the little mice got especially brave. He climbed even further up into the bowels of the piano. To his amazement he found that indeed the music did not come from the reverberating wires, but rather from little hammers that struck the wires. It was those hammers that really made the music. He returned to his family with a new description of the source of the music. The family of mice rejoiced that they were so educated that they understood that there was no great piano player but that the music came from little hammers that struck the wires. The family of mice did not believe that there was a player playing the piano. Instead they believed that their mechanistic understanding of the universe explained all of reality. But the fact is that the player continued to play his music.

Modern science has done much to uncover the natural processes in the world. Daily we are learning more and more about how this world operates. But just because we understand how things work does not mean that there is not an intelligent mind behind the process. Albert Einstein expressed an awe and respect for the superior spirit or mind behind the universe. We should not make the mistake of getting so caught up with how things work that we ignore the Creator, the highly intelligent mind that is behind the intricate process. [/FONT]

having said that,
i don't really put much weight on the old testament.
i mean, yes it is very significant, but for me it is probably 30/70 (old testament / new testament)

i mean, even the jews have almost the same old testament as us.
there is also alot more historical evidence for the new testament

 

[Wedjat]

Evolution was never an explanation for the origin of life, anyone who claims it is doesn't really know what they're talking about. The origin of life is covered by abiogenesis, which at the moment is a series of working hypotheses.

As for the mouse analogy, obviously I don't think it's an accurate one as I am an atheist. But if that mouse ever climbs out of the piano and see's the player so to speak I will cease being so. Until that time I will be content with what is known.

Also, did you write that yourself or is it an article from somewhere?

 

[solarwave]

You say that you are content knowing what is know. Do you mean what is known by science or what can be known?

I don't think you can know God purely by reason or science since knowing God is subjective not objective. I know the word subjective normal sounds bad (especially to 'rational' atheists) but many things in life are subjective. By subjective I mean it can't be proven by anyone, but that doesn't mean you don't personally have good ground for belief.

It seems to me three was which justify faith in God are, a personal relationship/interaction with Him, huge coincidences as the result of prayer, miracles/ healing. Prehaps changes lives by Jesus would be grounds for belief too.

I don't know why I am saying this, just getting my current thoughts down lol.

 

[RobertMerton]

Evolution was never an explanation for the origin of life, anyone who claims it is doesn't really know what they're talking about. The origin of life is covered by abiogenesis, which at the moment is a series of working hypotheses.

As for the mouse analogy, obviously I don't think it's an accurate one as I am an atheist. But if that mouse ever climbs out of the piano and see's the player so to speak I will cease being so. Until that time I will be content with what is known.

Also, did you write that yourself or is it an article from somewhere?

article, hence the quote.
and you are correct.

when people tell me 'do I deny evolution', i tell them that depends.

there are two different types of evolution.
i believe in the first type, that is where animals adapt to changes in temperature, climate, etc
this is well documented, and proven.

however evolution as the origin of life is a philosophy, as you mentioned, it is just a theory.

if i may ask,
what is stopping you from believing in the existence of God?

 

[Wedjat]

Once again I'd say that anyone espousing evolution as the origin of life doesn't know what they're talking about (as that is the realm abiogenesis) and anyone using evolutionary theory as a basis to answer philosophical questions is working grossly out of context.
And lets be careful not to mix up scientific theory and colloquial theory again.

If you are interested in why I don't believe you are welcome to PM me, as this is not the topic of the conversation. Suffice to say, I haven't been persuaded.

 

[RobertMerton]

Once again I'd say that anyone espousing evolution as the origin of life doesn't know what they're talking about (as that is the realm abiogenesis) and anyone using evolutionary theory as a basis to answer philosophical questions is working grossly out of context.
And lets be careful not to mix up scientific theory and colloquial theory again.

If you are interested in why I don't believe you are welcome to PM me, as this is not the topic of the conversation. Suffice to say, I haven't been persuaded.

unfortunately political correctness wins the day ey?

 

[Wedjat]

You say that you are content knowing what is know. Do you mean what is known by science or what can be known?

I meant that I am content to know what is known presently as fact. Things that are not known but may be known I look forward to with anticipation, but refrain from speculating on lest I harbor unfounded beliefs. Things that are newly discovered are like gifts to my mind, widening my view and bringing me deeper understanding.

I don't think you can know God purely by reason or science since knowing God is subjective not objective. I know the word subjective normal sounds bad (especially to 'rational' atheists) but many things in life are subjective. By subjective I mean it can't be proven by anyone, but that doesn't mean you don't personally have good ground for belief.

No, perhaps not, but I don't find it convincing.

It seems to me three was which justify faith in God are, a personal relationship/interaction with Him, huge coincidences as the result of prayer, miracles/ healing. Prehaps changes lives by Jesus would be grounds for belief too.

I don't know why I am saying this, just getting my current thoughts down lol.

It's fine. As always, I am always up to a PM discussion if you want to, but this isn't really on topic.

 

[Wedjat]

unfortunately political correctness wins the day ey?

???

 

[solarwave]

I meant that I am content to know what is known presently as fact. Things that are not known but may be known I look forward to with anticipation, but refrain from speculating on lest I harbor unfounded beliefs. Things that are newly discovered are like gifts to my mind, widening my view and bringing me deeper understanding.

No, perhaps not, but I don't find it convincing.

It's fine. As always, I am always up to a PM discussion if you want to, but this isn't really on topic.

What do you count as 'what is known presently as fact'. Who must believe it or what evidence must there be to make something fact.

I may take you up on PMing you, though Im thinking your offer that rather than here because your a trainee mod

 

[solarwave]

ck_psy
Why don't you believe in abiogenesis? By which I mean life coming naturally from dead matter.

TBH I dont know what I believe about it

 

[Mela Monkey]

NVM, ignore this.

 

[Wedjat]

What do you count as 'what is known presently as fact'. Who must believe it or what evidence must there be to make something fact.

For me, it needs to be physical empirical evidence and I need to trust my source. A big part of that trust is if the article cites original research, I need to be able to trace things back to their source and verify details.

I may take you up on PMing you, though Im thinking your offer that rather than here because your a trainee mod

Oh come now, I don't bite that hard. Hahaha, but really, I just want to make sure the thread doesn't get off topic.