Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[jackmt]

Does gravity exist, or is it a mental construct? How about our thoughts? They don't have form, substance or location, and yet we use them to formulate arguments to deny the creator who gave us the ability to conceive them.

All concepts are mental constructs. There is no guarantee that there is any object in the world corresponding to them. Learning means we adjust to new information and new ways of thinking about things. Our theories grow and change with new knowledge. Our theory of gravity is not gravity, whatever that is. Does gravity exist? Do thoughts exist? Certainly not in the way my house, car, clothes, etc. do.

I think a distinction needs to made between objects and relationships. I will use Russell's stipulative definition, so no dictionary definitions in rebuttal, please. Objects exist. Relationships subsist. They can be destroyed with no effect on the object. If the objects are destroyed the relationships are destroyed as well. So a relationship depends entirely on objects. Not so, vice versa.

Thoughts have location; in the mind/brain. It is not entirely clear what they consist of. I think they are likely relationships that subsist only while they are being thought. Gravity is an epiphenomenon that whose subsistence depends entirely on the objects affected by it and so is a relationship. Move the object and the effect changes. Take away the objects and gravity is no more. So no, they don't exist.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Anthony:
It isn't an illusion. We experience the passing and distance of time throughout our lives,just as we experience spacial distance. We acknowledge moments just as we acknowledge places.

The fact that things are and then are not,or that things change,shows that there is past and present. The fact that events happen,not just one event of being,shows that time is real. The passing of time is the prerequisite for change in the physical world. Change happens because things or realities are of limited duration,which has to do with time. The passing of time is the prerequisite for change in the physical world.

Jack:
You have this relationship backwards. Change in the physical world is what we call time.

No,change is a physical occurrence in time,and time is the continuum in which change happens. Change takes time. If you don't believe that time exists,why do you believe in space? It too is invisible and and without bodily existence. You may as well say that change in the physical world is what we call space. What we call space is an expanse of void between physical things.

Your argument does not convince. Tell me exactly what you conceive time to be if not merely a mental construct. It does not have being like objects. It does not have location like space. What properties does it have, where is it, and in what form does it exist? Until you tell me these things, you are merely attempting to prove time exists by repeatedly asserting that it does or stating that it exists for exactly the reasons I say it doesn't.

Why not just look up dictionary definitions?

Time - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1
a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future >



Time does have location. It is located in this physical,spacial world,and we mark and measure it with periods of duration,like we mark and measure space with standards of distance. Duration is a kind of distance.

It is not reasonable to deny the reality of something that is part of our common,lived experience.

 

[Prayer Circle]

Look at what Genesis says...

Genesis 2:1-4 (NKJV)
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...

It says clearly that the biblical creation account is the "history of the heavens and the earth". If the creation account is not true, then the book of Genesis is a lie.

If Genesis is a lie, then the origin of the concept of sin is also a lie, so why believe in a messiah coming to save people from sin?

I don't understand why anyone who doesn't believe the biblical account of creation would want to be a christian.

If you don't believe the biblical account of creation, what do you believe, why, and how is it logical to believe as you do?

Valid point.

Not all Christians believe God can only be found by reading the Bible and believing in what he is described to be, so as to be what Christian entails.
Some find God in the white. If one reads between the lines.

Jesus did not found Christianity. He came to free the mind from the trappings of men that taught God was something outside of their reach, while living. And something they could only attain if they followed structure and rules made by men, in the hopes after they were dead they'd be worthy of God.

Jesus was a radical in that he taught, as is said in the old testament, that God can not be contained in buildings and those things made by the hands of mortals. Yeshu/Yeshua (Joshua)/Jesus, lived that message,that truth, in ministry and deed, that each one of us is a living testament, a temple, unto the most high. As we are created in the image and likeness of that which creates all that is, and therefore God is indwelling in all that he makes possible. As was related in Luke 17:21. The Kingdom of God is within.

Meanwhile, as the Bible can give inspiration to those seeking to be inspired, and truth unto those who are truth seekers, so to can history give enlightenment in it's own way.
Because if all things are of God, then there is nothing that can be otherwise created.
The truth shall set you free. If you have the faith to seek it.



CREATION STORIES OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST
by Dr. David Livingston

 

[jackmt]

No,change is a physical occurrence in time,and time is the continuum in which change happens. Change takes time. If you don't believe that time exists,why do you believe in space? It too is invisible and and without bodily existence. You may as well say that change in the physical world is what we call space. What we call space is an expanse of void between physical things.

Why not just look up dictionary definitions?

Time - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1
a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future >



Time does have location. It is located in this physical,spacial world,and we mark and measure it with periods of duration,like we mark and measure space with standards of distance. Duration is a kind of distance.

It is not reasonable to deny the reality of something that is part of our common,lived experience.

Seriously, a dictionary definition? But note that even it is defined in terms of measurement of sequential events and a nonspatial continuum. A continuum is also a mental construct.

We can travel back and forth to and through points in space at will. Not so with time. We are stuck in the present because time does not exist for us to go back and forth in. We can point to places in 3D space, not so to time. If all matter were to suddenly disappear, we would still have 3D space. There would no longer be any change to measure, so time goes away, whatever it was. You must agree that it has at the very least a different kind of existence. At most, it subsists, but I don't think it even has that.

As a theory is judged by its usefulness in explaining phenomena, the current theoretical concept of time is very useful in measuring the changes in relationships amomg objects. Heat is a good example. It does not exist. It is the effect (epiphenomenon) of atoms interacting with other atoms, yet it is useful to think of heat in terms of quantity. "I need more heat in here!" Change does not happen in time, but time is the measurement of that change and it is useful to talk about it as if it had substance. "Give me a minute!" Reason makes us reject worn out concepts for the greater reality. The theoretical concept of time needs updating.

 

[gluadys]

If all matter were to suddenly disappear, we would still have 3D space.

No we wouldn't. That is one of the insights of modern quantum physics. Newtonian physics envisioned space as a vast emptiness extending infinitely in 3 dimensions providing nothing but spatial points by which we can locate matter and plot the trajectory of its movements.

Now we know that space is finite, dynamic, energetic and expanding and matter condenses out of the energy of space and even reforms space around it. Indeed matter is condensed energy and convertible back into energy. Space, matter and time are intimately connected. Remove one and you remove all.

 

[jackmt]

No we wouldn't. That is one of the insights of modern quantum physics. Newtonian physics envisioned space as a vast emptiness extending infinitely in 3 dimensions providing nothing but spatial points by which we can locate matter and plot the trajectory of its movements.

Now we know that space is finite, dynamic, energetic and expanding and matter condenses out of the energy of space and even reforms space around it. Indeed matter is condensed energy and convertible back into energy. Space, matter and time are intimately connected. Remove one and you remove all.

Interesting, space is finite while the universe it exists in and fills is infinite. I'll have to ponder and study that.

I maintain, though, that time does not exist, but subsists. And I would be more judicious in my use of the expression "now we know." "Now we believe" seems more appropriate. I Cor.8:2

 

[gluadys]

Interesting, space is finite while the universe it exists in and fills is infinite. I'll have to ponder and study that.

I maintain, though, that time does not exist, but subsists.

No, the universe is finite too. The universe is space/time/matter and so is as finite as space/time/matter is. It would seem only God is infinite.

And I would be more judicious in my use of the expression "now we know." "Now we believe" seems more appropriate. I Cor.8:2

Well we know that what we believe now is a better description of the universe than what Newton and his heirs believed. And very likely some future generation will believe something that is a better description of the universe than what we currently believe.

 

[cupid dave]

Look at what Genesis says...

Genesis 2:1-4 (NKJV)
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...

It says clearly that the biblical creation account is the "history of the heavens and the earth". If the creation account is not true, then the book of Genesis is a lie.

If Genesis is a lie, then the origin of the concept of sin is also a lie, so why believe in a messiah coming to save people from sin?

I don't understand why anyone who doesn't believe the biblical account of creation would want to be a christian.

If you don't believe the biblical account of creation, what do you believe, why, and how is it logical to believe as you do?

We do believe the biblical account, just not the present church interpretation which is faulted because of poor reading comprehension.

1) It is clear that the Universe DID have a beginning, 13.9 billion years ago. 
(Gen 1:1)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id19.html
 
 
2) The hot spinning molten matter that was to coalesce into the planet Earth was without form: 
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id132.html
 
3) There were seven long Cosmic "days" since that Big Bang, which we call the seven cosmic/geological Eras.
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/Eraclock.jpg
 
4) A Cosmic Dark Age did precede that advent of let there be light to flood the cosmos.
(Gen 1:3-5)              
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/DarkAge2.jpg
 
5) There was one ocean, once, where all the waters had been collected together.
(Gen 1:9)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/superocean.jpg
 
6) Pangea/Rodinia did actually confirm that the dry land appeared surrounded totally by water.
(Gen 1:10)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id123.html
 
 
7) The Plant kingdom did establish itself before the Animal kingdom.
(Gen 1:11)
 
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id18.html 
 
8) The Sun and the Moon and all the Stars were "MADE," given authority over circadian Earth Time as soon as life appeared:
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id126.html
 
 
9) Man WAS the last step in the evolution of Dominant Life on earth.
(Gen 1:27)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/sethNoah.jpg
 
10) Man HAS managed to form a mental IMAGE of "Father Nature" by understanding of His Laws and creation.
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id21.html
 
11) Gen 5:2 says god called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites," a species:
 
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id31.html
 
 
12) The 22 names in the genealogy compare directly with the 22 extinct species in the ascent to Modern man.


http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id143.html
 
The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
 
by G.J. Sawyer,  (Author), Viktor Deak (Author), Esteban Sarmiento (Author), Richard Milner (Author), Donald C. Johanson (Foreword), Maeve Leakey (Afterword), Ian Tattersall (Introduction)
 
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Human-Twenty-Two-Species-Extinct/dp/0300100477/ref=pd_ys_ir_all_76?pf_rd_p=258372101&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=list&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0ABGJDWD85JKZFZWTV3D

 

[Keachian]

We do believe the biblical account, just not the present church interpretation which is faulted because of poor reading comprehension.

Cupid Dave, your level of Concordism is frankly over the top and completely unnecessary if we start to look at the context of the original audience. I strongly suggest John H. Walton's book The Lost World of Genesis One, But then you have so many other extraneous beliefs that it wouldn't help.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Seriously, a dictionary definition? But note that even it is defined in terms of measurement of sequential events and a nonspatial continuum.

There is a difference between location and space. Time is nonspacial insofar that it doesn't have a particular location,but it does happen in this spacial world. And periods of time are like spacial locations.

A continuum is also a mental construct.

Continuums are seen to be real. The passage of the seasons is a continuum,and it is a reality.

We can travel back and forth to and through points in space at will. Not so with time. We are stuck in the present because time does not exist for us to go back and forth in. We can point to places in 3D space, not so to time. If all matter were to suddenly disappear, we would still have 3D space. There would no longer be any change to measure, so time goes away, whatever it was.

That we can't travel back in time does not mean time does not exist. We are going through it. We do not need to experience moments repeatedly to be sure that time is real.

You must agree that it has at the very least a different kind of existence. At most, it subsists, but I don't think it even has that.

I agree that it has a different kind of existence.

As a theory is judged by its usefulness in explaining phenomena, the current theoretical concept of time is very useful in measuring the changes in relationships among objects.

Theories are also judged by their logical connections. A theory's usefulness in explaining phenomena does not mean that it is true.

Heat is a good example. It does not exist. It is the effect (epiphenomenon) of atoms interacting with other atoms, yet it is useful to think of heat in terms of quantity. "I need more heat in here!"

If heat is an effect,it exists. Why deny the reality of effects? That heat is caused by the interactions of atoms does not mean it does not exist. It exists in the form of atoms and their interactions. The scientific reductionist view of reality does not falsify common experience.

Change does not happen in time, but time is the measurement of that change and it is useful to talk about it as if it had substance. "Give me a minute!" Reason makes us reject worn out concepts for the greater reality. The theoretical concept of time needs updating.

Change does happen in time. Any difference that happens can only happen in time. You are supposing that time is only a human measurement because humans use measurements of time.

 

[jackmt]

You keep repeating that these things exist, but you cannot tell me where or how or in what form they exist. An effect does not exist. The thing affected exists in a state altered by the effector. States don't exist; they are relations between and among things that do exist. And not everything that can be described has existence. The square circle, for example. And saying a relation exists doesn't give it existence. Nor does calling "it" a "thing." The limitations of language fool us constantly.

I think a distinction needs to made between objects and relationships. I will use Russell's stipulative definition, so no dictionary definitions in rebuttal, please. Objects exist. Relationships subsist. They can be destroyed with no effect on the object. If the objects are destroyed the relationships are destroyed as well. So a relationship depends entirely on objects. Not so, vice versa.

You ignored my stipulative definition between existence and subsistence, making me think you don't understand stipulative definition. A stipulative definition is an agreed upon definition stipulated to by all parties in a discussion for the purposes of, and limited to, that discussion. You used a dictionary definition to rebut my claims, showing me you don't understand what a dictionary is. It is merely a catalog of the common usages of words at the time of its printing. It is not an authoritative dclaration of "meaning" for all time.

The dictionary exists; the words in it don't have a physical reality, though they might be understood in terms of (temporary) disruptions in the air or as airwaves. The words we are using to communicate do not have meaning. Meaning is a mental construct. We use words (among other things) to communicate that meaning. We can only be successful in sharing that meaning if we assign the same values to words. Otherwise we are in effect speaking different languages.

 

[spartakis]

Look at what Genesis says...

Genesis 2:1-4 (NKJV)
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...

It says clearly that the biblical creation account is the "history of the heavens and the earth". If the creation account is not true, then the book of Genesis is a lie.

If Genesis is a lie, then the origin of the concept of sin is also a lie, so why believe in a messiah coming to save people from sin?

I don't understand why anyone who doesn't believe the biblical account of creation would want to be a christian.

If you don't believe the biblical account of creation, what do you believe, why, and how is it logical to believe as you do?

Couldn't agree more. But I believe it is true.

 

[Calminian]

Look at what Genesis says...

Genesis 2:1-4 (NKJV)
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...

It says clearly that the biblical creation account is the "history of the heavens and the earth". If the creation account is not true, then the book of Genesis is a lie.

If Genesis is a lie, then the origin of the concept of sin is also a lie, so why believe in a messiah coming to save people from sin?

I don't understand why anyone who doesn't believe the biblical account of creation would want to be a christian.

If you don't believe the biblical account of creation, what do you believe, why, and how is it logical to believe as you do?

I think your questions are valid. And I think that TE's and long agers are fooling themselves if the think non-believers are going to be more persuaded by the turning of Genesis into a metaphor.

But my question to you is, why don't you believe the Genesis account?

 

[Jazer]

It says clearly that the Jews were flown out of Egypt on "eagles' wings". If this account is not true, then the book of Exodus is a lie.

That is not what the passage says. In fact there is a song about this:

Josh Groban - You Raise Me Up - YouTube

 

[Papias]

Jazer wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

It says clearly that the Jews were flown out of Egypt on "eagles' wings". If this account is not true, then the book of Exodus is a lie.

That is not what the passage says. In fact there is a song about this:

​

Um, Jazer, did you open and read your Bible, instead of watching a music video? You have one of the different Bibles, right?

Exodus chapter 19:

Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”
So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words the Lord had commanded him to speak.

​

Papias

 

[Norman321]

I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself.

What does this mean "brought you to myself"?

 

[Smidlee]

What does this mean "brought you to myself"?

We all know what the Bible meant since the Bible tells in detail how God bought Jews out of Egypt. Because of these other verses we know not to take "eagle's wings" literally. This is why it's not always helpful to pick out a single verse.

The fact the scripture repeatedly referred to Adam, Noah and Moses as real people tells me take them and the events around them literally. When the Bible is using symbols it will let you know by other scriptures.

 

[Assyrian]

We all know what the Bible meant since the Bible tells in detail how God bought Jews out of Egypt. Because of these other verses we know not to take "eagle's wings" literally. This is why it's not always helpful to pick out a single verse.

The fact the scripture repeatedly referred to Adam, Noah and Moses as real people tells me take them and the events around them literally. When the Bible is using symbols it will let you know by other scriptures.

And if Paul interpreted Adam figuratively? Rom 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come. Scripture refers to people and you assume it is treating them literally, you may be reading that into the texts. Even if people and events are literal, it doesn't mean every description is literal. The Exodus was literal yet we have seen we have non literal descriptions of it like being flown out of Egypt on eagle's wings. Does the bible tell you that it always explain symbols by other scriptures? It took the church 1500 years for just part of the church to realise the symbols of the body and blood were symbolic.

 

[Smidlee]

And if Paul interpreted Adam figuratively? Rom 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come.

Both Adam and Moses are real people Paul is referring to. Read vs 12 as it plainly states one man sin entered into the world .... that would be Adam. The "Second Adam" you are referring to is a real person as well named Jesus. There are many "types" in the OT that point to Christ (Joseph,Isaac,etc) which were real people. I believe both Adam and the Second Adam were literal.

cripture refers to people and you assume it is treating them literally, you may be reading that into the texts. Even if people and events are literal, it doesn't mean every description is literal. The Exodus was literal yet we have seen we have non literal descriptions of it like being flown out of Egypt on eagle's wings. Does the bible tell you that it always explain symbols by other scriptures? It took the church 1500 years for just part of the church to realise the symbols of the body and blood were symbolic.

I don't why it took "the church" (whatever that means) 1500 years when it's very plain in scriptures. From my understanding not every "church" agreed with the Roman Catholics as they called any church not agreeing them as heretics. The Catholics (as well as some Protestants) were known to go after any church who preached against baby baptism. The Roman Church could care less if people were actually saved they just wanted everyone to identify themselves as Christians so they could control the masses. It was all about power to them.
(P.S I not assuming everyone in the Roman Catholic Church were the same as I have no doubt there were true believers who love God in the Roman Catholic church even in the Dark Ages. The same with the heretics, some were true believers while some were actually heretics)

 

[Ronald]

To JenniMatts,
Good post. Genesis is foundational in understanding the origins of the universe. I can't see trying to tell the people, who lived 3700 years ago, specific scientific details of how He did it with quantum physics, chemical compositions, the sub-atomic to the outer vast gravitational energies beyond our comprehension that He used to order and set the universe in motion and life itself ... No, He told simple, uncomplicated people a basic, simple story that a child can understand.
With regards to the word history in Gen. 2:4, which is in NKJV, it has different translations. "toledoth" means generations. So a generation is a beginning. Youngs Literal translation uses, "births"; the NASV uses, "account". I think births of the heavens and the earth is better than history ... Just a tid bit -- not to take away from what you posted.