Genesis is Barely Literal

[Jipsah]

Get a telescope and from the water's edge you'll consistently see distant objects that should be obscured by many feet of curvature.

You need to put that assertion to the proof, mate. I have. With the naked eye, and with every "bring 'em near" optical device we could lay hands on, the hull (ok, hulls) of the Aarhus-Copenhagen ferry (chosen because it always leaves on the same course and gets to the horizon PDQ) disappear at the same time, although the higher-power glasses give you a clearer view of the of the bits remaining above the horizon. If you're standing on the dock, of of course. I assume that if you're standing in the steeple of the church across the street you can see more for longer.

Easy to put to the test; try it. Until then, you're talking through your hat.

 

[Jipsah]

It's a health message not a sin message ..... that does not mean that it is best we eat all animals and all of them are equally good for us .... and the Lord gave us guidance with that and we can follow that guidance .... or not ... each chooses ... health message not sin message.

But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

 

[d taylor]

What is interesting is all the christians who are judging The Bible or at least many areas of The Bible as an unreliable source on God and God's creation.

Will one day be judged by the scriptures.

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.

What is given in The Tanakh by God is a counter to the handed down by tradition accounts. The creation account, fall of man, the flood account, the tower of babel account, the life of Abraham. These accounts were at one time handed down by tradition but as that lead to incorrect and not exactly accurate accounts. They were easily garbled in the process of human transmission.

But God through Moses gave the one and only accurate account of His creation and other events as recorded in The Bible. They were now perfect and reliable, the only true and accurate source of God's creation, etc...

 

[Paul4JC]

Why is a literal interpretation of Gen 1 and 2 so offensive to so many?

Because people believe the serpent..... "Did God really say,(add Bible text here)[?]" [Gen 3:1 NIV]

 

[ViaCrucis]

What was the last common ancestor of man and ape?

Technically man is an ape, as a matter of DNA and biology. The most recent common ancestor between hominids and our closest living ancestor, the chimps, is estimated to have been 6-8 million years ago based on available data, there are a few fossil hominins that may be near the Homo-Pan split, but we don't have a fossil example of that most recent common ancestor was, at least one that has received an agreed consensus by those in the relevant scientific fields.

Examples of early fossil hominins that are proposed, but disputed, candidates for being or being very close to the most recent common ancestor include Graecopithicus, and Sahelanthropus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jipsah]

What is interesting is all the christians who are judging The Bible or at least many areas of The Bible as an unreliable source on God and God's creation.

It is unreliable if you're looking for stuff in it that no one was talking about. Nothing in the Bible that I've seen says anything about the Earth being flat or stationary. You infer that from the Bible, but you supply the inference on your own. Yeah, the Scripture speaks of the sun rising and such, because that's how people talk. We say "the sun rose" bec ause that's how it looks from our perspective, and because it's a lot easier than saying "the earth rotated to the point where the sun was visible above the horizion" which is what actually happens.

But fair play, if God expects me to believe that the earth is flat and stationary even though He obviously created it to look as though it is neither, then I'm doomed. But I'm betting He did no such thing, and that the best way to determine the way God designed the material universe is to get outside and study it. If you can look at God's creation and see that it contradicts what you think Scripture means, then your understanding of the Scripture, IMO, is simply wrong.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Probably because it's literally the equivalent to an adult's description of something complex to a child. True as far as it goes, but doesn't go very far. Saying the sun is a light in the sky is true, but tells you nothing of the nature or either the sun nor the sky.

It tells me more of the nature of sun and sky than does a raft of modern textbooks. Perhaps you need to re-read it?

More likely that we've discovered that the simplistic descriptions of God's creation fail utterly to convey the impossible magnitude of what God has actually done. It's like compring a cup of tea to the Pacific Ocean, only moreso.

Certainly the lack of depth of modern physical sciences is one thing, but their divergence from the Biblical science is a bigger issue.

What if it sits on the back or a large turtle?

Usually a few kids, until an angry zookeeper tells them off.

Well, it'll certainly liberate you from the chore of ever having to navigate anything anywhere.

Thanks, but looks like the powers and principalities will beat you to it with their blasted quaccine passports.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Boggles the mind, doesn't it? Imagine being someone so arrogant that they can actually sit there and say, "God told us he did something this way, but I know better than He does." This is the test that God gave to Job in Job 38-40 where He points out the inadequacy of men to fully understand what God, Himself, has accomplished. Job learned to shut his mouth, but these people continue to argue in foolishness.

Quite right, there's a 'bright line' between God and the things of the world, the latter being foolishness to the former. And as Jesus emphatically schools Nicodemus:

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? (Jn 3:11-12)

 

[Shrewd Manager]

You need to put that assertion to the proof, mate. I have. With the naked eye, and with every "bring 'em near" optical device we could lay hands on, the hull (ok, hulls) of the Aarhus-Copenhagen ferry (chosen because it always leaves on the same course and gets to the horizon PDQ) disappear at the same time, although the higher-power glasses give you a clearer view of the of the bits remaining above the horizon. If you're standing on the dock, of of course. I assume that if you're standing in the steeple of the church across the street you can see more for longer.

Easy to put to the test; try it. Until then, you're talking through your hat.

Are you saying the scores of videos I've watched from my scientific lounge chair made by independent enquirers are all doctored in some way? The basic method is as follows.
(a) show the map distances between 2 points A and B, the latter being a recognisable land mark, say a lighthouse, lightship, beacon or buoy.
(b) film the set up of the hi-zoom camera on the water's edge at point A.
(c) film the viewfinder of that camera as it zooms in on the distant target.
(d) plug the camera height and target distance into a reputable online earth curve calculator (using uncontroversial spherical trigonometry) to consistently reveal a 'target hidden height' of a significant amount.
(e) repeat from points C, D and E.

Where has this method failed? Why does it always show 'we see way too far' by comparing what ought to be visible on the ball earth model with what is actually visible in reality at a certain distance?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Are you saying the scores of videos I've watched from my scientific lounge chair made by independent enquirers are all doctored in some way? The basic method is as follows.
(a) show the map distances between 2 points A and B, the latter being a recognisable land mark, say a lighthouse, lightship, beacon or buoy.
(b) film the set up of the hi-zoom camera on the water's edge at point A.
(c) film the viewfinder of that camera as it zooms in on the distant target.
(d) plug the camera height and target distance into a reputable online earth curve calculator (using uncontroversial spherical trigonometry) to consistently reveal a 'target hidden height' of a significant amount.
(e) repeat from points C, D and E.

Where has this method failed? Why does it always show 'we see way too far' by comparing what ought to be visible on the ball earth model with what is actually visible in reality at a certain distance?

If you like I can find a YouTube video that shows Queen Elizabeth II and Mark Zuckerburg are both reptilians, and I'll even throw in a video of Sasquatch for free.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OnePath]

If you like I can find a YouTube video that shows Queen Elizabeth II and Mark Zuckerburg are both reptilians, and I'll even throw in a video of Sasquatch for free.

-CryptoLutheran

Come on now. The bulk of the proof globe-believers provied as 'evidence' are pictures and videos. Are you consistent and dismiss all those because there are also videos on the topic of reptilians and sasquatch as well? Or are you only selectively dismissive when it suits some preconceived notions? Besides, if you start dismissing those, all you'll have left are sticks with shadows and water spinning around a toilet bowl.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Come on now. The bulk of the proof globe-believers provied as 'evidence' are pictures and videos. Are you consistent and dismiss all those because there are also videos on the topic of reptilians and sasquatch as well? Or are you only selectively dismissive when it suits some preconceived notions? Besides, if you start dismissing those, all you'll have left are sticks with shadows and water spinning around a toilet bowl.

My criticism isn't with visual evidence, that'd be pretty silly.

My criticism is of conspiracy theories and pseudo-science.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Oseas]

My criticism isn't with visual evidence, that'd be pretty silly.
My criticism is of conspiracy theories and pseudo-science.
-CryptoLutheran

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same Word -the Word is GOD- are kept in store, reserved unto FIRE against this Day of Judgment (the seventh and last Day-the Lord's Day) and perdition of ungodly men. Seeing then that all these things shall be DISSOLVED, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the Day of God, wherein the heavens being on FIRE shall be DISSOLVED, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat. 2 Peter 3:v.7 and 11-12

whether there be knowledge / science, it shall vanish away

 

[OnePath]

My criticism isn't with visual evidence, that'd be pretty silly.

My criticism is of conspiracy theories and pseudo-science.

-CryptoLutheran

And yet the idea of existing visual evidence is what was being belittled when you tried to equate it with other non-related visual content you consider to be farcical.

According to this line of thinking, when a flat-earther realizes that it's the globe-earthers who are caught up in a conspiracy, then it's perfectly reasonable to you for their response to be that they could also show farcical videos in response presuming the same credibility as any shared by globe-earthers?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

If you like I can find a YouTube video that shows Queen Elizabeth II and Mark Zuckerburg are both reptilians, and I'll even throw in a video of Sasquatch for free.

-CryptoLutheran

I perceive you have a solid grounding in sound scientific method.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I perceive you have a solid grounding in sound scientific method.

I have a basic understanding of how the scientific method works. Yes.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I have a basic understanding of how the scientific method works. Yes.

-CryptoLutheran

So you brought to bear the full rigour of the method in proving the reptilian queen hypothesis, did you?

 

[ViaCrucis]

So you brought to bear the full rigour of the method in proving the reptilian queen hypothesis, did you?

I've provided as much evidence in favor of the queen being a lizard person as there is evidence for the flat earth hypothesis.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fervent]

And yet the idea of existing visual evidence is what was being belittled when you tried to equate it with other non-related visual content you consider to be farcical.

According to this line of thinking, when a flat-earther realizes that it's the globe-earthers who are caught up in a conspiracy, then it's perfectly reasonable to you for their response to be that they could also show farcical videos in response presuming the same credibility as any shared by globe-earthers?

There's a really simple experiment to prove the earth has curvature. All you need is a couple of balloons on strings, a measuring device, and an unobstructed view to the horizon. Measure the string so the balloons are exactly the same length, take one balloon until you can just see the other balloon and then stand in line with the balloons, one will be lower than the other. Why? Curvature.

 

[Jipsah]

If the boat doesn't go hull-down at the same time with every
Where has this method failed? Why does it always show 'we see way too far' by comparing what ought to be visible on the ball earth model with what is actually visible in reality at a certain distance?

The fact that the boat goes hull down at all is the point. In a flat sea it wouldn't. It would get smaller with distance, but magnification would allow you to see the whole thing, just as you could if it had just left the dock. The fact that the hull disappears at all is the thing - why does it disappear? Round earth says it's below the visible horizon. Flat earth has no explanation, just alibis and excuses.

The most hilarious thing flatties toss out is that roads don't follow the curvature of the earth. Apparently they've never seen a road, going around curves, up mountains, down into tunnels, and every which way at all to follow the terrain. The curvature of the earth has nothing to do with it, the curvature of the valley that it's winding through does.

By the way, here's one no flattie has ever attempted to explain for me. I used to have a ham mate in VK land (Oz); good guy, brilliant operator. Sometimes there'd be interference between there and Tennessee that made a normal conversation impossible. Often we were able to turn our antennas 180 degrees and talk long path without interference. Flat earth denies the existence of a long path, and can offer no rational explanation I've ever heard of why having our antennas turned back to back would work at all. If you have one I'd be very keen to hear it.