Chronogenesis II

essentialsaltes · Nov 18, 2014

AV1611VET said:
In other words, the fact that the order of Creation according to Genesis One is so different than the order according to atheistic paradigms; it makes Genesis One stand out more, and gives more weight to the Creation being an act of God, rather than an act of nature.

That's only because your paradigm is the one stated in your .sig

You are self-confessedly immune to observational evidence.

Your hypothesis, however, is at least an attempt to rationalize the fact that observation does not line up with your assumptions.

AV1611VET · Nov 18, 2014

essentialsaltes said:
That's only because your paradigm is the one stated in your .sig

"My paradigm" is laid out in Genesis 1.

I took the time to make sure I wrote it down in chronological order, according to the Bible.

If I got the order wrong, then I'm sure anyone can correct me -- even atheists; since it's a simple matter of comparison and lining up what I wrote to what was written in the Source Document.

DogmaHunter · Nov 18, 2014

AV1611VET said:
It's a pet theory of mine that God purposely created the universe in the "wrong" order --- knowing that in the end times, there would arise a paradigm against this order, that is based on observation only.

So, your god deliberatly set out to make it look as if he doesn't exist and had nothing to do with the creation of the universe and everything it contains?
And you think that makes sense?

In other words, the fact that the order of Creation according to Genesis One is so different than the order according to atheistic paradigms; it makes Genesis One stand out more, and gives more weight to the Creation being an act of God, rather than an act of nature.

Right, so.... genesis has more weight and is more believable because.... it isn't supported by the evidence of reality?

It's hard to argue with a mind that thinks like that.

I can see it before me now: "right judge, I realise that everything points to the dude not being the murderer - but you should understand that that only reinforces the view that he actually is the murderer..."

Loudmouth · Nov 18, 2014

AV1611VET said:
I believe Mr. Augustine's [unspoken] point is that only the Catholic Church is qualified to interpret the Scriptures.

And seeing as how they treated Galileo, and why they treated Galileo that way (interpreting Scripture as today's scientists do: i.e., geocentrism), I don't think Mr. Augustine has a leg to stand on.

You are treating Darwin the same way that the RCC treated Galileo. Perhaps you should think about that.

"First, I say it seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and no absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke. For to say that the assumptions that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still saves all the celestial appearances better than do eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run the risk whatever. Such a manner of speaking suffices for a mathematician. But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without traveling from east to west, and that the Earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the Sun, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our hold faith by contradicting the Scriptures."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

AV1611VET · Nov 18, 2014

DogmaHunter said:
I can see it before me now: "right judge, I realise that everything points to the dude not being the murderer - but you should understand that that only reinforces the view that he actually is the murderer..."

Let's correct this mindset, shall we?

"Right, judge. I realize that everything points to the dude not being the murderer - but you should understand that he is confessing to the murder, and saying he didn't kill the victim in the order presented by the prosecution."

AV1611VET · Nov 18, 2014

Loudmouth said:
... by contradicting the Scriptures.

What Scriptures? the Vulgate? the Septuagint?

essentialsaltes · Nov 18, 2014

AV1611VET said:
I took the time to make sure I wrote it down in chronological order, according to the Bible.

If I got the order wrong, then I'm sure anyone can correct me

It hardly matters whether you got it wrong, since your project is doomed from the start. When investigating the observable universe, why would you trust the words of fallible men, rather than observing the observable universe?

Loudmouth · Nov 18, 2014

AV1611VET said:
What Scriptures? the Vulgate? the Septuagint?

The same scriptures that you claim to have.

AV1611VET · Nov 18, 2014

essentialsaltes said:
It hardly matters whether you got it wrong, since your project is doomed from the start. When investigating the observable universe, why would you trust the words of fallible men, rather than observing the observable universe?

You mean let fallible men tell me what I'm observing?

AV1611VET · Nov 18, 2014

Loudmouth said:
The same scriptures that you claim to have.

Nope -- sorry.

It doesn't work that way.

I'm not a KJVO just because I like those letters; or because I think it would make a great radio station.

Loudmouth · Nov 18, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Nope -- sorry.

It doesn't work that way.

I'm not a KJVO just because I like those letters; or because I think it would make a great radio station.

They had the King James in 1615. You are being just as foolish as Cardinal Bellarmine, throwing out science because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

AV1611VET · Nov 18, 2014

Loudmouth said:
They had the King James in 1615.

Doing what with It? burning It?

I highly ... Highly ... HIGHLY doubt Cardinal Bellarmine walked around with a KJV in the vicinity -- much less refer to It as "the Scriptures."

Loudmouth · Nov 18, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Doing what with It? burning It?

I highly ... Highly ... HIGHLY doubt Cardinal Bellarmine walked around with a KJV in the vicinity -- much less refer to It as "the Scriptures."

You are making the same foolish mistake that Bellarmine did. You are throwing out science because it conflicts with your interpretation of scripture.

essentialsaltes · Nov 18, 2014

AV1611VET said:
You mean let fallible men tell me what I'm observing?

You are always welcome to observe for yourself. There is the world itself, before your eyes. If you need help, there are zoos, museums, observatories designed to let you interact directly with interesting portions of the observable universe.

But of course, you yourself are fallible, as am I.

You rely, I know, on translators, and, I hope, on commentaries, on the bible to arrive at your own conclusions about its interpretation. Your interpretation may be the product of many fallible men, but when there is broad agreement, surely we have some justification for tentative concurrence?

Similarly, you could study the observations of other observers of the observable world, and learn about the conclusions they have drawn about it. These conclusions may be the product of many fallible men, but when there is broad agreement, surely we have some justification for tentative concurrence?

Split Rock · Nov 18, 2014

AV1611VET said:
You mean let fallible men tell me what I'm observing?

The original authors of every book in the bible were fallible.
The writers of the KJV1611 were fallible.
Dr. Henry Morris was fallible.
Your pastor is fallible.
You are fallible.

You are sadly mistaken if you think that using scripture as your source shields you from human fallibility. It does not.

AV1611VET said:
Nope -- sorry.

It doesn't work that way.

I'm not a KJVO just because I like those letters; or because I think it would make a great radio station.

You are KJVO because it is convenient.

selfinflikted · Nov 18, 2014

Split Rock said:
You are KJVO because it is convenient.

He is KJVO because his mama and daddy were.

Paul of Eugene OR · Nov 18, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Doing what with It? burning It?

I highly ... Highly ... HIGHLY doubt Cardinal Bellarmine walked around with a KJV in the vicinity -- much less refer to It as "the Scriptures."

Cardinal Bellarmine was Italian, as was Gallileo with whom he disputed. Why would there be any reason on earth to think about the ENGLISH translation of the scriptures? Do you fault the Italians and the Germans and the French for failure to adopt the KJV instead of the Greek and Hebrew when they translate?

Split Rock · Nov 18, 2014

selfinflikted said:
He is KJVO because his mama and daddy were.

If I recall correctly, AVET explained in the past that he was not always KJVO. I don't recall if he ever said anything about his parents.

selfinflikted · Nov 18, 2014

Split Rock said:
If I recall correctly, AVET explained in the past that he was not always KJVO. I don't recall if he ever said anything about his parents.

I'm actually shocked. Perhaps AV would chime in?

AV1611VET · Nov 18, 2014

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Cardinal Bellarmine was Italian, as was Gallileo with whom he disputed.

That's their parents fault, not mine.

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Why would there be any reason on earth to think about the ENGLISH translation of the scriptures?

There wouldn't.

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Do you fault the Italians and the Germans and the French for failure to adopt the KJV instead of the Greek and Hebrew when they translate?

Yes.

And for the record, I strongly disagree with the Vulgate or Septuagint being referred to as "Scripture."

Chronogenesis II

Fact-Based Lifeform

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Code Monkey

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Fact-Based Lifeform

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

Fact-Based Lifeform

Conflation of Blathers

Under Deck

Finally Old Enough

Conflation of Blathers

Under Deck

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency