Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:13 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
wercool wrote:eccept some stuff in revelation that he didn't have a literall name for.also when it says that its fictional(ie. when jesus says that he's telling a parable.)other then that yes.
So then you believe that the parts in Genesis where it talks about creation that it literally took place within "a 24-hour period" for God to create each of those items. You believe that EVEN WHEN THERE WAS NO CONCEPT SUCH AS TIME, that time was still measured?

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
wercool wrote:and yes i understand evolution perfectly i know that it contridects the bible. peiriod.
The only way the Bible contradicts evolution is if you believe that everything in the Bible is literally true. Do you honestly believe that?
Actually, even then it does not contradict evolution.
Sure it does, unless you believe the evolution up to man took less than a week.
No, because as you pointed out, our time did not exist back then.

PLAYER..."literally" is "literally".

PLAYER57832 wrote:The reference of a day was to divide things up into a fashion understandable for humans. In modern useage, the word "day" could have been translated as "age". The "day" and even the "evening and day" references are not for Earthly time periods. Contrary to what many modern "fundamentalists" assert, that view is actually historical and more common among ancient scholars than the modern version. A lot of the assumptions about this were not made by the scholars or Rabbis, they were made by the common people. It was not considered a critical point, until scientific discoveries started to assert that the other view simply could not be possible. The point of Genesis is that God created all.

Why are you lecturing me on this?

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:53 am**

Why did God have to rest anyway? was he tired?

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:54 am**

jonesthecurl wrote:Why did God have to rest anyway? was he tired?

Dude, he's an old man. Of course!

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:23 pm**

jonesthecurl wrote:Why did God have to rest anyway? was he tired?

God rested so that we might rest in him.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:38 pm**

jonesthecurl wrote:Why did God have to rest anyway? was he tired?

God rested to give us an example to follow.(in scientific tests you work more effencently if you rest roughly one seventh of the time)

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:06 pm**

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER..."literally" is "literally".

PLAYER57832 wrote:The reference of a day was to divide things up into a fashion understandable for humans. In modern useage, the word "day" could have been translated as "age". The "day" and even the "evening and day" references are not for Earthly time periods. Contrary to what many modern "fundamentalists" assert, that view is actually historical and more common among ancient scholars than the modern version. A lot of the assumptions about this were not made by the scholars or Rabbis, they were made by the common people. It was not considered a critical point, until scientific discoveries started to assert that the other view simply could not be possible. The point of Genesis is that God created all.
Why are you lecturing me on this?

I was not trying to. However, this IS a literal interpretation of the Bible... and you were saying it isn't.

It is a critical point, because the truth is that they have distorted the meaning of both "yom" (the original Hebrew) AND the word "day". Both can absolutely mean "24 hours", but can also mean a more vague time period. Understanding the words the way they were intended IS reading literally.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:25 pm**

tzor wrote:God rested so that we might rest in him.

Sounds pretty intimate. I thought that he was against the whole bumsex thing?

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:40 pm**

King Doctor wrote:
tzor wrote:God rested so that we might rest in him.
Sounds pretty intimate. I thought that he was against the whole bumsex thing?

Depends who's on top.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:42 pm**

Frigidus wrote:
King Doctor wrote:
tzor wrote:God rested so that we might rest in him.
Sounds pretty intimate. I thought that he was against the whole bumsex thing?
Depends who's on top.

He sure is a difficult guy to understand, sometimes I feel like he's just acting completely randomly...

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:11 pm**

wercool wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:Why did God have to rest anyway? was he tired?
God rested to give us an example to follow.(in scientific tests you work more effencently if you rest roughly one seventh of the time)

Well, he did nothing for the whole of eternity before working for six days, then was too tired to carry on. That's a whole lot more than a 1 in 7 rest ratio.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:11 pm**

And does he have five portions of fruit and veg a day to set us an example too?

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:24 pm**

jonesthecurl wrote:And does he have five portions of fruit and veg a day to set us an example too?

I believe so, but it's a long time since I looked at the books of the Law. I believe He is supposed to get the "first fruits" and the first grains and the first vegtables. (Although I think the grain is a "wave" offering.)

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:31 pm**

tzor wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:And does he have five portions of fruit and veg a day to set us an example too?
I believe so, but it's a long time since I looked at the books of the Law. I believe He is supposed to get the "first fruits" and the first grains and the first vegtables. (Although I think the grain is a "wave" offering.)

Does he use multivatim tablets for the over-50's? Cos I've been wondering about the long-term benefits, and He should know.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:07 pm**

tzor wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:No, because as you pointed out, our time did not exist back then. The reference of a day was to divide things up into a fashion understandable for humans. In modern useage, the word "day" could have been translated as "age". The "day" and even the "evening and day" references are not for Earthly time periods. Contrary to what many modern "fundamentalists" assert, that view is actually historical and more common among ancient scholars than the modern version. A lot of the assumptions about this were not made by the scholars or Rabbis, they were made by the common people. It was not considered a critical point, until scientific discoveries started to assert that the other view simply could not be possible. The point of Genesis is that God created all.
I'm going to nit pick with you here. A lot of scholars will point out that the notion of "sunset to sunset" was fairly established in the semetic community at the time. One significant purpose of the first chapter story is to provide a non-pagan meaning to the notion of a seven day cycle, which was originally from ancient Babylon. It also established the theological basis for one of the words that formed the ten commandments. In the Babylonian week, each day was reflected with one god which in turn was mapped to the five planets plus the sun and moon. The genesis story, although naming the sun and moon as rullers of the heavens, maps the seven days into a structure of creation, (formed into six days, the first three days creating the divisions of the universe and the second three days populating the divisions of the universe with their respective rullers) followed by the criticial day of God's "rest."

Thus the notion of the "sunset to sunset" is clear in the Genesis story. What is a potential source of confision is wanting to make a linear narative out of a heirarchical one. Creation is mapped into the week to justify the week in priestly terms and to remove it from pagan terms.

This is one interpretation. It is not the only one.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:23 pm**

wercool wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:Why did God have to rest anyway? was he tired?
God rested to give us an example to follow.(in scientific tests you work more effencently if you rest roughly one seventh of the time)

I'm curious to see some actual studies on this - do you have some references for me, or was this just something you heard?

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:26 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER..."literally" is "literally".

PLAYER57832 wrote:The reference of a day was to divide things up into a fashion understandable for humans. In modern useage, the word "day" could have been translated as "age". The "day" and even the "evening and day" references are not for Earthly time periods. Contrary to what many modern "fundamentalists" assert, that view is actually historical and more common among ancient scholars than the modern version. A lot of the assumptions about this were not made by the scholars or Rabbis, they were made by the common people. It was not considered a critical point, until scientific discoveries started to assert that the other view simply could not be possible. The point of Genesis is that God created all.
Why are you lecturing me on this?
I was not trying to. However, this IS a literal interpretation of the Bible... and you were saying it isn't.

That man came to be on the Earth within one week IS a literal interpretation of the Bible. THAT is what I am saying.

PLAYER57832 wrote:It is a critical point, because the truth is that they have distorted the meaning of both "yom" (the original Hebrew) AND the word "day". Both can absolutely mean "24 hours", but can also mean a more vague time period. Understanding the words the way they were intended IS reading literally.

IF THEY'VE BEEN DISTORTED, THEN IT'S NOT "LITERAL". UNLESS YOU'RE SAYING THAT ALL MODERN BIBLES ARE THOROUGHLY INVALID, in which case I will agree wholeheartedly with you.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:27 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
tzor wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:No, because as you pointed out, our time did not exist back then. The reference of a day was to divide things up into a fashion understandable for humans. In modern useage, the word "day" could have been translated as "age". The "day" and even the "evening and day" references are not for Earthly time periods. Contrary to what many modern "fundamentalists" assert, that view is actually historical and more common among ancient scholars than the modern version. A lot of the assumptions about this were not made by the scholars or Rabbis, they were made by the common people. It was not considered a critical point, until scientific discoveries started to assert that the other view simply could not be possible. The point of Genesis is that God created all.
I'm going to nit pick with you here. A lot of scholars will point out that the notion of "sunset to sunset" was fairly established in the semetic community at the time. One significant purpose of the first chapter story is to provide a non-pagan meaning to the notion of a seven day cycle, which was originally from ancient Babylon. It also established the theological basis for one of the words that formed the ten commandments. In the Babylonian week, each day was reflected with one god which in turn was mapped to the five planets plus the sun and moon. The genesis story, although naming the sun and moon as rullers of the heavens, maps the seven days into a structure of creation, (formed into six days, the first three days creating the divisions of the universe and the second three days populating the divisions of the universe with their respective rullers) followed by the criticial day of God's "rest."

Thus the notion of the "sunset to sunset" is clear in the Genesis story. What is a potential source of confision is wanting to make a linear narative out of a heirarchical one. Creation is mapped into the week to justify the week in priestly terms and to remove it from pagan terms.
This is one interpretation. It is not the only one.

Interpretation? I thought we were talking literally?

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:32 pm**

Define "day". Day can mean 24 hours, yes. But it can also mean something broader, as in the phrase "in my day and age". The same applies to terms like "evening" and "morning". ("the morning of my youth")...etc. I have always been taught that the words were intentionally ambiguous.

The reason this is an important part is because it gets to Christian doctrine. But... I am not trying to debate the meaning. I am just explaining why I take issue with the statement that only those who say the Earth was created in 144 hours take the Bible literally.

(there are also even broader views, but I won't get into those here)

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:35 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
Interpretation? I thought we were talking literally?

1 + 1 =2

But "yellow" can be "Sunshine", "sunflower", "canary", etc.

Posted: **Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:04 am**

Andy,

Rodent feeding mosquitos descended from bird feeding mosquitos as a result of ancestors moving into tunnels would be nice evidence for natural selection and microevolution maybe, but what if lions and tigers share a common ancestor and yet peacocks and turtles don't?

Tzor,

I don't find creatio ex nihilo in Genesis maybe, but is there a radiometric dating technique that would be useful for dating diamond if He did happen to create diamond instantly? Whether created out of nothing or pre-existing matter or other? Is there any diamond without a so called daughter isotope in it? How about we do a study on Genesis 1:1-2 and theorize together?

A notion of a seven day cycle was originally from ancient Babylon? You sure Adam was not aware of a seven day week? You mean to hint at postflooders living in Babel?

Tzor and Doc,

I might not have access to an original Genesis 1:21, but see hyperlinks next to the word whales here that you can click? The word dinosaur is from the 19th century and dinosaurs have been called several things throughout history including dragons and tanniynim perhaps. http://qbible.com/genesis/1-21/

Posted: **Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:16 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:Define "day". Day can mean 24 hours, yes. But it can also mean something broader, as in the phrase "in my day and age". The same applies to terms like "evening" and "morning". ("the morning of my youth")...etc. I have always been taught that the words were intentionally ambiguous.

The reason this is an important part is because it gets to Christian doctrine. But... I am not trying to debate the meaning. I am just explaining why I take issue with the statement that only those who say the Earth was created in 144 hours take the Bible literally.

(there are also even broader views, but I won't get into those here)

remember plants were created the day before the sun, so if the day was to long they would all die. also once the sun was created there was a definite measurement of day and night.
day 1 light and dark
day 2 atmoshere
day 3 dry ground/plants
day 4 sun/moon/stars
day 5 birds/fish
day 6 all other animals/humans

Posted: **Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:16 pm**

wercool wrote:remember plants were created the day before the sun, so if the day was to long they would all die. also once the sun was created there was a definite measurement of day and night.
day 1 light and dark
day 2 atmoshere
day 3 dry ground/plants
day 4 sun/moon/stars
day 5 birds/fish
day 6 all other animals/humans

What's the difference between the "light" from day one and the "sun" in day 4? According to Christians are they supposed to be the same or is that a transcription error?

(I know this has probably already been covered but I'm not going to go through all the pages of this topic to find out)

Posted: **Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:05 pm**

bradleybadly wrote:
wercool wrote:remember plants were created the day before the sun, so if the day was to long they would all die. also once the sun was created there was a definite measurement of day and night.
day 1 light and dark
day 2 atmoshere
day 3 dry ground/plants
day 4 sun/moon/stars
day 5 birds/fish
day 6 all other animals/humans
What's the difference between the "light" from day one and the "sun" in day 4? According to Christians are they supposed to be the same or is that a transcription error?

(I know this has probably already been covered but I'm not going to go through all the pages of this topic to find out)

I obviously can't speak for all Christians, but some think that God created the sun earlier, but there was a haze in the atmosphere that prevented it from showing through very well, thus allowing a little light, but not showing the sun. I think this view is mostly held by long-day creationists (Another literal interpretation of the Bible, since the Hebrew word used for day is also their only word for an age.). Notice that first God created light, then he separated the light from the darkness. This correlates exactly with the current big bang theory. First there was nothing, God spoke, then there was a mass of light. Very shortly afterwards, the light separated by gravity into star and galaxies. The stars and galaxies are the light and the space between them are the darkness. It would make sense that a newly formed earth would not have a completely clear atmosphere, and the sun, moon and stars would not clearly shine through. I think this is consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible too. I rushed through this a bit, so sorry if this is a little disorganized!

Posted: **Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:10 pm**

Sorry if someone already mentioned this, but I think its important.
Notice that each of the sections for the first 6 days written in Genesis follow the exact same form. The all end exactly the same. "And there was evening, and there was morning - the #th day." The 7th day doesn't end like this. I think this was a literary device meant to draw attention to the fact that the 7th day was different. 'Evening and morning' could mean 'beginning and end'. This could imply that the 7th day is still going on.

Posted: **Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:23 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
wercool wrote: God rested to give us an example to follow.(in scientific tests you work more effencently if you rest roughly one seventh of the time)
I'm curious to see some actual studies on this - do you have some references for me, or was this just something you heard?

Now you're arguing with scientific tests? Guh, wha's wrong with you?

Conquer Club

More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails

Re: More proof evolution fails