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.
You believe that 1) Moses wrote Genesis and 2) that Moses was inspired by God. The first is not true. The second may be true. It is what you believe. But you don't have the objective or even intersubjective evidence to phrase it like it is a fact.time said:"The Egyptians had a story "
They had lots of things including sacred cows. Moses got his direction, and inspiration from the Man.
1. What we are dealing with is not God's word, but your word on what the Bible means. So I can easily believe God but not believe you.time said:lucaspa: "This isn't "lack of faith", it's reasoning faith at its best. It's trying to understand the message God intended, instead of trying to force a message on God"
Not believing God at His word, and feelin we have to compromise and accept an old world, and such to me is not great faith.
Glad you agree. Why should we be interested in pleasing Biblical literalists?"Without faith in a literal Bible, it's impossible to please Biblical literalists, but that isn't who we are interested in pleasing, is it?"
Apparently not.
No, God did not "dictate it". The most the Bible claims is that it is "inspired", not dictated. Also, the question is whether you are understanding what God intended in the Bible. What you are saying Genesis 1 means is not "His Own words". It's your telling God what His words mean! And what you are telling Him is against what He wrote in His Creation."The way you are advocating isn't seeking, it's dictating to God"
Dictating to God? Believing His acount in His Own words is dictating? I didn't make the stuff up, it was Him who dictated it!
Nice, but how does this relate to the 6 days of Genesis 1 and a young earth. By your logic, the earth could be any age at all in our time but a completely different "age" or no age at all to God. So why do you view an old earth as a compromise and something not to be done.time said:"Instead, what this guy is assuming, apparently, is that the farther away we are the closer to the speed of light we are moving and thus, the more time dilates for us."
No, it would have to do with whether you are in the God created dimension, or sphere, that is living under time. There, all things are limited and affected by it. Wheras, If you were not limited by time, such as God, who created it, then time would not exist. So, from this time limited bubble then, we would look out and natuarally assume that time was essential everywhere, as it is here. So, far or close, outside of the sphere, things would not take 'time'.
Neither. He was head of geology at Cambridge and President of the Royal Geological Society.time said:"The Flood was falsified by 1831. Rev. Adam Sedgwick"
Well the problem here is probably that this fellow 'falsified' the flood using false assumptions, and false information.
Nice way to dismiss him. Won't work. Here is one evolutionist who mentions him prominently. There are others.The falsifying Rev doesn't seem to be mentioned much by evolutionists I've heard. Never actually.
You missed the point. The reason the Israelites would still be interested in Egyptian religion is that religion was a direct competitor to Judaism and some Israelites would be tempted to convert. After all, Egypt was, in Ezra's time when Genesis was compiled, a very powerful nation. People of the time thought that the validity of gods was determined by the success of the nation that had those gods as patrons. Egypt was very successful. Israel was not. Therefore the Israelites might think: "maybe the Egyptians are right". Genesis 2 was one way to counter Egyptian theology.time said:Point is the Egyptians did,t part the sea, send the cloud, give the commandments, etc, God did. So about all the Egyptians seemed to do was get in the way. Until God made them a deal they couldn't refuse, to let His people go. So why harp on anything those pagan has beens would have thought?
Details of Genesis 1? Hardly. Notice that birds are created on Day 5 and land animals on day 6 before humans. Only after the animals are created are humans created, and then both male and female (both plural in Hebrew, so it's men and women). Now look at Genesis 2. You get one man created. Then you get the land animals and birds, then one woman. Not details, contradictions. You can't have it as a "detail" that birds are created a whole day before the first human and then have birds crearted after the first human!time said:Gen 1 is the order of creation. Gen 2 goes back and brings out more detail of things that already happened. They were not being re-created, or deja vu, or a new creation, etc. Obce you understand that chap 2 is a cinch!
Actually, Genesis 2 doesn't mention fish at all. It is birds and animals that are formed of the same substance as Adam. In Genesis 1 they are spoken into existence.Just look at how the fish and animals in passing, in chap 2 were refered to as being made out of the ground.
But you do. Your whole thing of God being in a different time bubble denies a literal Genesis. So, you are already in trouble."All of these contradictions can be avoided by not taking Genesis 1 and 2 literally, but that seems to be something you don't want to do"
No, not in this life, nor the next.
God lives in a city of gold but also in your heart? Does He commute? How far away is this city?True time does exist in the Universe. At least in our part of it, according to this theory. Now if we think of God as being 'outside the universe' that is a pretty far away God. I think of Him as in my heart. I think of Him as close enough to answer prayers. I think of Him as having a wonderful city of gold that He will also live in, and that will soon come to our earth.
When were those created in Genesis 1? Which day?Then we have all His angels, and spirit helpers, also very close by.
Please pay attention. It was very clear. The Egyptian theology had a story where immortal life was obtained by gaining knowledge. This was contrary the the Hebrew beliefs but, let's face it, it's a very tempting idea. It makes immortal life no longer dependent on God, but simply on what the individual does. Get enough knowledge and you are immortal.time said:"So if we don't understand what needed to be corrected, we won't understand what was done to correct it"
Sounds reasonable. What is it you think needs correction anyhow? Perhaps if you let us know we can understand what needs to be done to correct it!
The logic does not match up. God did not lie in giving the Israelites the Ten Commandments. Simply because they were temporary does not automatically mean that they were """bad.""""lucaspa said:Time: Piece of cake! You may notice He made light first, before the sun, moon, and stars. So for a couple days that served as morning, and evening. He didn't lie at all. In fact the Bible says "God cannot lie".
Ezekiel 20:25 has God saying He did lie. He gave bad laws but told the people they were good laws.
Why not? If God dicated it, as you claim, then how can you not look at it as an exact order?time said:So I think you are looking at this as some kind of exact order in Chap 2. I don't look at it like that.
Who says you can do that? Not the Bible.I don't really think it is. We're just going from a pan view to some zoom shots here and there. If you want specs, look at chap 1.
According to you, it must be. After all, God dicated it and doesn't lie. If it's not in chronological order, then God lied about the order.Chap 2 is not in chron order.
You know, I'm really glad you said this. So the preponderance of the scriptures is that day is 24 hours. Let's look at Genesis 2:4b: "in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" Now "day" here couldn't possibly mean 6 days, could it? After all, that means Jesus is dead for 18 days and that the sun stood still for 6 days. But wait! Genesis 1 said God created in 6 days, not one day!Well morning and evening was a day. Most of the bible is the same. If you hang on the few exceptions and try to override the plain timetable of the 7 days, you get away from something called the 'preponderance of the scriptures'. This is where you need to take the whole bible in context, and not pick out things that seem to be possibly unclear. What if someone said Jesus was not dead 3 days, and nights, but millions of years? Or that the sun stood still in the sky for a battle, not for a portion of the one day, but maybe thousands of years etc.
No, God is a big reason people try to reinvent the Genesis week. Science is just another way of saying "reading the second book of God".Science seems a big reason a lot of people try to reinvent the Genesis week.
Which means that you end up fighting God! What do you think the odds are of you winning a fight against God?For me, I have nothing to hide from science falsely so called. I do not have common ancestors with flys and cockcroaches! I don't believe God needs to be made a liar, or apologized for, nor the bible disbelieved. Science that goes against Him is a dragon needing to be slain and fought. (not cowered from and appeased)
I think God wrote the bible, I don't care if He used Ballam's ***! If I could whip up the universe and mankind, animals etc. in a week, I would be able to assure a record gets down to men in good enough order. He did.You believe that 1) Moses wrote Genesis and 2) that Moses was inspired by God. The first is not true. The second may be true. It is what you believe. But you don't have the objective or even intersubjective evidence to phrase it like it is a fact.
This evidence He gave us chiefly includes His own words on the topic. He spells it out so even an unrebellious child could understand! As far as looking old, things seem to look a lot older to those who swallow the death pill of evilution.Who created? God, right? Well, then, that makes the world also God's word. He created it, didn't He? That means that everything in the world was put there by Him. Including all the evidence that tells us the earth is old
I already mentioned He wrote some of it Personally, on the mountain with moses. Jesus spoke His words, I could say dictated them, I think, to many real people who simply wrote them down later. Then we have other cases, like John the Beloved, who was actually "carried away" in the spirit, to get the crowning revelation, not his own but "The revelation of Jesus Christ which He gave.." We get it 6 ways from sunday, but we always get it from from God.The most the Bible claims is that it is "inspired", not dictated
Well the prime objective or hope there was to knock the teeth out of the claim of millions and billions of years away. Once that giants are slain, we can have a look at the rats. (not that you personally are one, but these little knawing side pocket ideas of resistance that may want a 'taste' after the big battle)Nice, but how does this relate to the 6 days of Genesis 1 and a young earth. By your logic, the earth could be any age at all in our time but a completely different "age" or no age at all to God
time said:I already mentioned He wrote some of it Personally, on the mountain with moses. Jesus spoke His words, I could say dictated them, I think, to many real people who simply wrote them down later. Then we have other cases, like John the Beloved, who was actually "carried away" in the spirit, to get the crowning revelation, not his own but "The revelation of Jesus Christ which He gave.." We get it 6 ways from sunday, but we always get it from from God.
I have no problem as far as the theory goes, with distance measured in miles. The problem comes with time.primary method would be the amount of red-shift in the light spectrum we recieve. However, we CAN determine, with less accuracy, roughly (within a degree of magnitude or so) how far away such a source is simply by the intensity of the source,
What do you mean by this? How in simple terms, is it that light from a star a billion light years away apparently constant?theory can't account for the apparent constancy of "c"
Can you put your cookies on a lower shelf, preach?And, oddly enough, the "not a real factor" time seems to match EXACTLY what we would expect if time and "c" are constants throughout the universe
Exactly how can this be simply demonstrated?time outside of local space DOES match our local space within a very close tolerance
No one thinks the creator didn't order things in a particular area just because they are not affected by time the same way we are. I see no reason for some type of chaotic, random behavior.If time outside of local space either behaves differently, or is not a factor, we should expect that in general, any observations that we make should NOT be able to be related to specific time-frames. We should see either random or nonexistant correlations ..
Somewhere probably in the 1 light week, to several thousand light years away range.Where, exactly (or even close to exactly) does your "theory" place the edge of this "time-bubble"
And what was an exact 'forinstance here, that would illustrate your point?(ie, non-time-bound correlations of cosmic phenomenon outside the "bubble" or cosmic phenomenon outside the "bubble" that disagree strongly with predicted behavior based on OUR measurements from within the "bubble"),
Yes, the bible occasionally uses day in another fashion. Never to my experience in some confusing way. The record is very clear. Do the manly thing, accept it, or reject it. You won't please God and the devil anyhow, why p them both off?So, by your interpretation, God goes to great effort in Genesis 1 to make sure the "days" there are related to our time scale, by saying "evening and morning". And then saying the 6 days of creation is the same as the 6 days of the week with the day of rest being the Sabbath. So God, according to you, is directly dictating that the He created in 144 of our hours
lucaspa said:When and where did you read it?
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?