- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,258
- 52,668
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I'll consider evolution when I see a cow give birth to a giraffe.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'll consider evolution when I see a cow give birth to a giraffe.Oh I know it wouldn't be decisive . . . but you weren't the one to claim it as an argument, either. My point is, its not really an argument against evolution, since as soon as scientists make life creationists will go right on disbelieving in evolution anyway, and therefore it was always a false argument, and everybody should know it is a false argument.
In your case, everybody knows you don't even bother with logical arguments or evidence anyway.
Time itself was created at the beginning of the universe, and time itself, as well as space expanded into the very large space time that we inhabit.
This means a period of time equivalent to 6 terrestrial days (as is implied by Moses) may in fact appear to be a lot longer time from an observation point within the created universe.
This is one inference from General Relativity and has been expermientally verified. The Rabbi Maimonides, in the 12th century determined this from the first verses of Genesis and of course the work of Albert Einstein brought the idea into popular scientific thought.
This article is informative: http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html
So given the difference in perspective that relativity yeilds, who would be lying about how long things took to the person who claimed 6 days or the person who claimed a much longer time frame from their observation point? The answer is that neither is lying.
We can take the word of God literally because He is the Creator and the one who is telling the story from His perspective but we can also understand that time and space itself unfolded as it was created to make a space and time big enough for Gods creation to dwell within.
This is understanding and means that while we can confirm in our own minds that the observations of an apparantly old universe and earth are valid, we don't need head down some slippery slope of maligning the integrity of God.
The only contradictions are in the translations and interpretations of the word.
Try reading Luke 10:25-37. Jesus doesn't identify what he is saying as a parable.There is allegory and there is history. They are clearly defined where used.
Otherwise, as I said, it is impossible to tell history from fable.
As a curiosity, why do you have "Christian" listed as your faith. You certainly do not believe what Christ taught. You're on a Christian website proclaiming the Scriptures to be false and calling God's account of creation a myth. Jesus said in John 5:Factual, no. It is a MYTH...an attempt by ancient man to explain how he got there, why he worships the god he worships and explain the hard questions of life that they were aware of, death, illness, failed crops. Every single ancient culture has one...who's to say the Genesis account is any more correct than any other one?
Who said it was?Try reading Luke 10:25-37. Jesus doesn't identify what he is saying as a parable.
As a curiosity, why do you have "Christian" listed as your faith. You certainly do not believe what Christ taught. You're on a Christian website proclaiming the Scriptures to be false and calling God's account of creation a myth. Jesus said in John 5:
37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
Christian means "of Christ." Christ taught that the Scriptures were the inspired word of God. You claim them to be the uninspired musings of uneducated men. How does that conform to what Christ taught?
Who said it was?
Even if it was a parable, I believe the parables were real events Jesus witnessed.Another person who does not understand literary devices or how lessons were taught in the ancient world.
Even if it was a parable, I believe the parables were real events Jesus witnessed.
Well....we have a universe and the only plausible candidate for the cause of this universe is a person. This universe is shot through with intelligibility and design, the only source of which we know is intelligent people.That's a real nonsensical word salad there.
Let's quit going for the wild, esoteric stuff, and go for plain ideas. String theory is something that changes often. So, one more time...let's ask the simple question...is there ANY repeatable evidence available that a person has ever created a universe? If yes, then I'd love to read the papers. If not, then...it seems that this sort of thing is impossible.
Well....we have a universe and the only plausible candidate for the cause of this universe is a person. This universe is shot through with intelligibility and design, the only source of which we know is intelligent people.
Read Pasalm 22 and you will know what Jesus was saying. How can you even know the question you are asking unless you know what He was saying. When you understand Psalm 22, perhaps then you might be able to ask a sensible question about Eloi Eloi Sabachthani.That doesn't answer his question. The question was, "Didn't Jesus know why the Father had forsaken him?". So the mere fact that the question was prophesied does not invalidate the issue of what Jesus knew on the cross. Isn't it really just a distraction?
Read Pasalm 22 and you will know what Jesus was saying. How can you even know the question you are asking unless you know what He was saying. When you understand Psalm 22, perhaps then you might be able to ask a sensible question about Eloi Eloi Sabachthani.
Yeah, I have the Genesis Flood book on my shelf and realise there are problems. I find it hard to see how the natural world could exist without death in the sense of physical death. Plant life, for example, relies on the cycle of death and rebirth for the maintanence of healthy soil. (Benificial) Bacterial life multiplies at such high rates that without an equally quick death the whole world would be speedily overwhelmed. It seems that physical death is the phenomenon that maintains the correct balance of the natural world.I could agree if you were talking about an ancient universe
and a new earth, as the viewpoint of all scripture centers on
the earth. When God spread out the stars, he could have sent
age right along with them.
There are several problems with an old earth, biblically speaking.
No death before sin
Romans 5:12
1 Corinthians 15:21
And God does things in His own time.God told the end from the beginning, or creation
Isaiah 46:10
I don't see how relativity gets in the ways of this, after all the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days which could be appear to be a longer period of time from within that system. The mirror 6 thousand years you refer to is not the same as 6 terrestrial days either. Perhaps this is why the meaning of the word "yom" is so very broad, to allow for the observation of an old universe.History mirrors the creation week, and we are about
to end the six thousandth year and enter the Sabbath
rest. Just a small thing like the tribulation to go, and it
could already be started.
Psalms 90:4
2 Peter 3:8
I think that the beginning of terrestrial time perception begins at the point where humanity can observe time ie when we were created. As in quantum it is the observer that determines the state of things.Finally, do you think God could keep us safe for millions of
years, and let us destroy ourselves in a few thousand?
Without a handful of miracles, I don't see us living another
hundred years, and maybe not fifty. Between poison, pollution,
radiation, vaccines and GMO's, it's a race to see which will kill
us first or sterilize us to die off.
So either Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 or God really had forsaken him...which is it?
A common Rabbinical way to refer to a Psalm was to simply quote the first sentence then everybody that was listening would remember the rest of it, in much the same way that we can remind people about a popular song by singing only one line of the song.So either Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 or God really had forsaken him...which is it?
Clearly your definition of personhood is very narrow. God is the proto-person, we are created in His image. I mean person in the sense of being a willful mind capable of acting on that will.You do understand that God is not a "person", right? God is a non-corporeal being. So, your hypothesis and supporting statements fall flat.
Just another thought because this reminds me of an objection that the late Christopher Hitchens raised, that of the problem of thousands or perhaps millions of years of pain and suffering before God decides to save the world.Finally, do you think God could keep us safe for millions of
years, and let us destroy ourselves in a few thousand?
Without a handful of miracles, I don't see us living another
hundred years, and maybe not fifty. Between poison, pollution,
radiation, vaccines and GMO's, it's a race to see which will kill
us first or sterilize us to die off.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?