The Big Bang is nonsense, so why do I defend it?

[Aman777]

False. This is your interpretation, in no way to be confused with truth.

Then TRY to refute that Truth either Scripturally scientifically or historically. I know you cannot but go ahead and try and show everyone that you are correct.

 

[Aman777]

You preference has no relationship with truth. The Hebrew language is not depended on what you think it means, but what it actually says. Yom is day--beyom is a period of time. Your interpretation of Genesis has never been accurate in any way shape or form. But if that brings you some sort of happiness----whatever---ignorance is bliss they say.

Then refute me (prove me wrong) either Scripturally scientifically or historically. I will give you an example of how easy it is to refute your view:

We had dominion over every living thing at creation.

Genesis 1:27 shows that God the Trinity is creating Adam (Heb-mankind) in His Image or in Christ Spiritually on the 6th Day. God continues to create mankind in Christ TODAY. The prophecy of Gen 1:28-31 is future to our time as you will see later in this post.

Every thing was vegetarian at creation, that was lost at the fall.

Un-Scriptural since Darkness or Death was upon the heaven (air) earth (ground) and water BEFORE the first Day. Gen 1:2 Hint: The Lion will lay down by the Lamb AFTER Jesus returns at Armageddon. The fulfillment of the prophecy of Gen 1:30 is shown in Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

and God Himself, killed the first animal to clothe Adam and Eve and they saw what their sin led to.

Correction: Lord God (YHWH/Jesus) made the clothes for A&E. Gen 3:21

The bible is clear, if you would stay away from your false imaginings you would see the clarity.

Don't get mad and run away and you will learn much. God Bless you

 

[mmksparbud]

Then refute me (prove me wrong) either Scripturally scientifically or historically. I will give you an example of how easy it is to refute your view:



Genesis 1:27 shows that God the Trinity is creating Adam (Heb-mankind) in His Image or in Christ Spiritually on the 6th Day. God continues to create mankind in Christ TODAY. The prophecy of Gen 1:28-31 is future to our time as you will see later in this post.



Un-Scriptural since Darkness or Death was upon the heaven (air) earth (ground) and water BEFORE the first Day. Gen 1:2 Hint: The Lion will lay down by the Lamb AFTER Jesus returns at Armageddon. The fulfillment of the prophecy of Gen 1:30 is shown in Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.



Correction: Lord God (YHWH/Jesus) made the clothes for A&E. Gen 3:21



Don't get mad and run away and you will learn much. God Bless you

You can not prove any of your theories scripturally or any other way. You never have been able to. The scripture is plain, so is the language--the word day is evening and morning--period. You, and anyone else, can take it differently if you want, you want can take it any way you want to--bottom line, yom is day-beyom is an age. You can not prove anything else, you can just say that you are going to believe it means an age. Not according to Jewish scholars, but accuracy was never something you have shown interest in, only in trying to prove your farfetched theories, which you never one have been able to. They are completely unscriptural and of your own making.
You have proven nothing---God pronounced Adam and Eve and all of creation--good and ended His work and set up the Sabbath to commemorate the finish of it. The original Hebrew reads--functional--good is what it was translated as. Everything God makes is fully and completely functional and working according to His design. In Gen 6 when it says that the sons of God saw the daughters of man that they were fair---the original wording is once again functional--
"and the sons of the Elohiym saw the daughters of the human, that they were functional, and took for them women from all which they chose."

טוב

FUNCTIONAL: Definition: Fulfilling the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used, or for which a thing exists. A functioning within its intended purpose. Hebrew: טוב tov-masc.טובה to-vah-fem. AHLB: 1186-J(N) KJV Translations: good, better, well, goodness, goodly, best, merry, fair, prosperity, precious, fine, wealth, beautiful, fairer, favour, glad Strong's: #2896, #2898

When God sent the flood it was because

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.


רעע

Definition: Something dysfunctional, wrong, evil or wicked.
BE.DYSFUNCTIONAL(Verb): Definition: Impaired or abnormal filling of purpose; to act wrongly by injuring or doing an evil action. Hebrew: רעע r.ah.ah AHLB: 1460-B(V) KJV Translations: evil, evildoer, hurt, wickedly, worse, afflict, wicked, break, doer, ill, harm, displease, mischief Strong's: #4827, #7489

The transliteration says

"and YHWH saw that the dysfunctions of the human in the land was abundant, and all the thoughts of inventions of his heart was only dysfunctional every day,"

God created everything fully functional, perfect and in need of nothing---after the fall, we became dysfunctional. When Christ returns and we are resurrect4d--we will then become fully functional once again. You are free to ignore any of this--and you will.

 

[Aman777]

You can not prove any of your theories scripturally or any other way. You never have been able to.

Amen, not according to your SDA doctrine, but I study to show myself approved unto God, a workman who is not ashamed of rightly dividing the word of Truth.

In Gen 6 when it says that the sons of God saw the daughters of man that they were fair---the original wording is once again functional--
"and the sons of the Elohiym saw the daughters of the human, that they were functional, and took for them women from all which they chose."

WHO are the sons of Elohiym or sons of God? WHERE did they come from? Try to be brief in explaining. Amen?

 

[mmksparbud]

Amen, not according to your SDA doctrine, but I study to show myself approved unto God, a workman who is not ashamed of rightly dividing the word of Truth.



WHO are the sons of Elohiym or sons of God? WHERE did they come from? Try to be brief in explaining. Amen?

Not according to any denominational doctrine!! I do my own research on subjects with as much of the actual Hebrew or Greek as I can find, I do not go to my denominational literature on subjects. The bible is very clear when we do not inject our own theories.
Very simple---they were men of authority--men who followed God--probably religious leaders, such as priests who married women who did not believe in God. Somethi9ng God always found abhorrent. And which still happens today. Please do not go into all that angels mating with women garbage. In 40 years I've heard nothing new to substantiate that claim.

 

[Ophiolite]

@mmksparbud Well, you have completely sidetracked this thread which, if you have bothered to read the OP would have led you to realise has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Perhaps you can make amends by going to the OP, reading it (reading it properly, if you think you had already done so) then return with an answer to the question I posed within it.

Thank you.

 

[mmksparbud]

@mmksparbud Well, you have completely sidetracked this thread which, if you have bothered to read the OP would have led you to realise has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Perhaps you can make amends by going to the OP, reading it (reading it properly, if you think you had already done so) then return with an answer to the question I posed within it.

Thank you.

I just answered a couple statements and questions. If my answers were off topic, I assume the statements and questions that I answered were also. Sorry if that offended you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I was once an agnostic and I subscribed to a similar train of thought. And to relieve your disappointment, I'm going to show you something.

To arrive at the YEC position, as I do, takes a literal interpretation of Genesis. It's as simple as that. The concept of YEC is as simple as ABC when you apply the concept of biblical inerrancy. When the Bible is held above all other claims, YEC becomes the model above all other models for the origins of the universe and therefore, life as well.

Biblical inerrancy, as a concept, is ridiculous to those who are liberal in their faith, even more so for those who are atheist/irreligious. I was talking to my mother months ago about Jesus and almost proposed the idea that He was frothing at the mouth and losing His mind in mental delusions as He preached the Word. I was an agnostic then and the idea didn't really bother me.

What spun me back 180 was when, in my belief and my mother's belief, that God prevented my fall into utter immorality and addiction.

I am not angered by those who are disappointed by those who are obstinate in their beliefs in YEC. Being irreligious, you appeal fully to logic and reason, and YEC is by no means logical/reasonable from a secular point of view. I merely hold to YEC because I believe in the perfection of the Biblical account and that's the end of my reasoning. There's nothing else to say.

I hope my response was satisfying in some way.

I have to say, it's nice to see someone being honest about it for once.
Indeed, your YEC view is entirely based in what you have decided to believe religiously and it has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Indeed: science, logic and rational reasoning does not lead to a YEC view of the world at all. A YEC view is entirely, completely, dependend on a religious belief and nothing else.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, it is not a science book--however, words are very important if accuracy is important to you, it is to me. The word day being discussed has nothing to do with the big bang theory--it has to do with what scripture means when it says day. People insist is can mean eons--when in the original it most certainly does not. But actually--for me-- I very much do believe in a big bang---actually, I believe in 6 big bangs---each time God said "let there be"-----BANG!---the power of His word caused a big bang and what He said, became reality.

This is somewhat off topic, but I must say.... I'm always baffled when people say that God "speaks" things into existance. I mean, what could be more obvious nonsense?

Every time I read such, I can't help but think of a Gandalf/Merlin like charachter who says "abracadabra" followed by *poof*, a bunny.

I think it's the current Pope who once said "God is not a wizard with a magic wand..."

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then TRY to refute that Truth either Scripturally scientifically or historically. I know you cannot but go ahead and try and show everyone that you are correct.

The collective genome of all species, show that there never was such a thing as a global flood that killed practically everything. It also shows that all life shares ancestry.

The genetic record of life alone, is enough to refute any literal reading of just about any religious scripture known to mankind.

 

[mmksparbud]

This is somewhat off topic, but I must say.... I'm always baffled when people say that God "speaks" things into existance. I mean, what could be more obvious nonsense?

Every time I read such, I can't help but think of a Gandalf/Merlin like charachter who says "abracadabra" followed by *poof*, a bunny.

I think it's the current Pope who once said "God is not a wizard with a magic wand..."

Really? Ever look up sound. Sound waves. The latest discoveries on the power of sound? Quite interesting.

 

[Ophiolite]

I just answered a couple statements and questions. If my answers were off topic, I assume the statements and questions that I answered were also. Sorry if that offended you.

Thank you for your reply. I was not offended, just disappointed that you had not addressed the question that prompted me to start the thread. The disappointment remains, since I see you have no interest in answering it. That's fine. Thanks again for responding.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think it's the current Pope who once said "God is not a wizard with a magic wand..."

On the other hand Arthur C. Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If the universe was created by a conscious entity it would have required very advanced technology, which would be so indistinguishable* from magic that it would have to be considered, by us, to be magic.

*Apologies for qualifying an absolute.

 

[Tayla]

BBT will always seem to me ugly; a change of heart on the part of cosmologists would be a surprise.

I find it odd that they accept the inflationary phase right after the big bang as scientific. After all, the natural laws had to be different than they are now so that matter could travel much faster than the speed of light. Seems to me the more honest approach would be to say the universe began immediately after the inflationary phase and investigate what it would have looked like, and all the implications of this.

That said, I am a young earth creationism.

 

[mmksparbud]

Thank you for your reply. I was not offended, just disappointed that you had not addressed the question that prompted me to start the thread. The disappointment remains, since I see you have no interest in answering it. That's fine. Thanks again for responding.

I did respond to it--did you read post #39? Or did you just think it was off topic and did not read the whole thing?

 

[Ophiolite]

I find it odd that they accept the inflationary phase right after the big bang as scientific. After all, the natural laws had to be different than they are now so that matter could travel much faster than the speed of light. Seems to me the more honest approach would be to say the universe began immediately after the inflationary phase and investigate what it would have looked like, and all the implications of this.

Inflation does not require matter to travel faster than light. It is space that is expanding at speed, carrying the matter with it. The natural laws were not different.

 

[Ophiolite]

I did respond to i9t--did you read post #39? Or did you just think it was off topic and did not read the whole thing?

My sincere apologies. I stopped reading half way through as it seemed to be a discussion of scriptural interpretation. To clarify, are you stating that you accept evolutionary theory, albeit as God's way of "creating" mankind? If so, you have answered my question and I thank you. If not, you have not answered my question.

 

[Aman777]

The collective genome of all species, show that there never was such a thing as a global flood that killed practically everything. It also shows that all life shares ancestry.

Amen. God told us all about this in Genesis 1:21. He tells us that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from WATER on the 5th Day, which was 3.8 Billion years ago, in man's time. Science confirmed this in last year. https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/.../looking-for-luca-the-last-universal-common-ancestor/=

Every living creature on Earth descended from L.U.C.A. except Humans since Humans (God's children) were made on the 3rd Day BEFORE plants, herbs and rain. Gen 2:4-7 Out genome was contaminated with the blood of the sons of God who were prehistoric people who descended from the common ancestor of Apes. Noah's grandsons, like Cain on Adam's Earth, had NO other Humans to marry so they married the prehistoric people and produced children with them. Genesis 6:4

We did NOT descend from Apes but from Adam and Eve, the first Humans, and we will regain our perfect bodies when Jesus returns for us and we will have dominion over EVERY living creature including Apes for we are God's children and NOT the children of the common ancestor of Apes on planet Earth. God Bless you

 

[mmksparbud]

My sincere apologies. I stopped reading half way through as it seemed to be a discussion of scriptural interpretation. To clarify, are you stating that you accept evolutionary theory, albeit as God's way of "creating" mankind? If so, you have answered my question and I thank you. If not, you have not answered my question.

No, I do not. I said there is a time gap--from when the earth was formed--void, shapeless--with water---to the time when creation week was started.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Between the time God created the heaven and earth--to the time He created light---could have been eons. Rocks that are millions of years old doesn't matter to me. Creation itself--when God began the creation week, still only took 6 days.
And scriptural interpretation is what makes a difference in any of this. And words are very important. They are the words of God and we should strive for accurate interpretation of the original words from the original language framed by the way the Jews at the time used those words.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, I do not. I said there is a time gap--from when the earth was formed--void, shapeless--with water---to the time when creation week was started.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Between the time God created the heaven and earth--to the time He created light---could have been eons. Rocks that are millions of years old doesn't matter to me. Creation itself--when God began the creation week, still only took 6 days.
And scriptural interpretation is what makes a difference in any of this. And words are very important. They are the words of God and we should strive for accurate interpretation of the original words from the original language framed by the way the Jews at the time used those words.

Thank you again for responding. Finally, would you consider now anwering my original question:given that rigorous application of logic, evidence and reasoned argument thoroughly dispute and refute your view of creation, on what basis do you justify an emotive decision in favour of a 6-day creation over a dispassionate and objective intellectual one in favour of evolution?