Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 38910111213141516 LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 313
  1.    #241  
    I agree that the first part of Genesis had to have covered many, many years, but i still wonder how it was "reported" to the "news agency". (That is, of course, if it happened at all )
  2. #242  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    I agree with Typo Lad about the first part of Genesis being a sweeping prelude that is meant to be an overview, not a detailed literal scientific history. Only difference is that he starts the history in chapter 11; I move it back to chapter 2 . Chapter one is a general order of events that surely cover aeons of time, and I believe we all can agree on that.... well, some might still find exception with the first verse
    I've also heard views that the overview ends with Joseph, with the Exodus, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    I agree that the first part of Genesis had to have covered many, many years, but i still wonder how it was "reported" to the "news agency". (That is, of course, if it happened at all )
    That's the thing - there's a school of thought that the first chapter isn't "hard news" at all, but the warm-up act before the show.

    It's not the specifics that matter (despite what the creationists think) but the gist: There was a First Cause, It put existence into motion, Mankind became aware, they fought, developed cities, and eventually discovered Monotheism. At that point it follows one family. Everything before is the "once" in "once upon a time"
  3. #243  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    I agree that the first part of Genesis had to have covered many, many years, but i still wonder how it was "reported" to the "news agency". (That is, of course, if it happened at all )
    Within the Biblical context, there is a very plausible possibility. God communicated directly with Adam, so why not also explain to him the basics mentioned in chpt 1? From there, between Adam and Noah only one generational overlap is required (using the given genealogy). Shem, a flood survivor, overlaps Abraham's lifespan. The Bible makes many references to written histories that were apparently well known at the time, but are not preserved. Very likely then, when Moses compiled the account, he had access to some well preserved oral and likely written records.

    Add to that what is recorded in Exodus... Moses talking to God directly and even getting dictation for the Law. (please don't bring Charleton Heston to mind) The whole Bible claims to have been inspired; however that doesn't always mean that he whispered in someone's ear. Often there is a very normal way for the information to have been collected and recorded, perhaps the inspiration in those instances is simply God choosing which writings to ensure survive and be collected into the whole.
  4. #244  
    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    That's an awesome question. However, it assumes "ending up in Heaven" is the end goal, or that Heaven is a set thing.
    Noah isn't in Heaven?
    If not, where is he?
  5. #245  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    Can´t find the post, but someone had asked for peer studies regarding possible flaws in radioactive dating? Here's two:

    Unexpected errors affect dating techniques - 30 September 1989 - New Scientist


    ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING - NYTimes.com
    Those are articles which referred to radiocarbon dating (using Carbon 14), not radioactive dating as a whole. Radiocarbon dating is only good in the 50,000-60,000 year old range, so with regards to ancient fossils, this technique isn't even used. The errors they talked about were about 250 up to 3000 years off depending on the laboratory (in the grand scheme of things, that's a drop in the bucket). I don't know if that answers anyone's biblical questions, but hey, it's science!


    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    Science is a product of the same race that brought us politics, commerce, and religion, which is often influenced by pride, greed, etc. To believe that science as we know it today is the product of pure thought without any corruption is naive.
    Pride and greed are there, but I wouldn't quite group science in with commerce, religion, and certainly not politics. Though I understand what you are getting at.
    August 2009 - January 2011. Thank god I'm no longer a Pre user!

  6. #246  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    Noah isn't in Heaven?
    If not, where is he?
    Adam was told that consequence of disobeying was death. Result of obedience? Just keep living in Eden! (Gen 2:1,17) No mention is made in Hebrew scriptures of humans going to heaven as a reward. Even in Greek Scriptures, heaven is not shown to be ultimate reward of all faithful...Acts 2:34- David isn't in heaven. Mat 11:11- John the Baptist either.

    Noah's expectations were probably much the same as those of Job; die and await a future resurrection (Job 14:13-15)

    I agree with octoberorange's comments about radioactive dating; actually over 90% of carbon dating results of human artifacts fall well within the Bible's approximately 6000 yr timeline of human history. I only posted the refs because someone earlier seemed to imply that no innacurate or conflicting results ever come back.
  7. fubka's Avatar
    Posts
    36 Posts
    Global Posts
    40 Global Posts
    #247  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    There is plenty of proof that the earth is millions of years old, and this in no way conflicts with the Bible.
    How is that? Again, you are twisting logic to fit your beliefs and feelings / bias.
  8. #248  
    Quote Originally Posted by fubka View Post
    How is that? Again, you are twisting logic to fit your beliefs and feelings / bias.
    Actually, he's citing a majority opinion in generations of Bible Study, dating at least as far back as Maimonides. The obsession with the "days" of Creation being literal days is a fairly recent thing.

    After all, how do you have a "day" without celestial bodies?
  9. #249  
    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    Actually, he's citing a majority opinion in generations of Bible Study, dating at least as far back as Maimonides. The obsession with the "days" of Creation being literal days is a fairly recent thing.

    After all, how do you have a "day" without celestial bodies?
    This, and also just the Hebrew grammer in Genesis 1 and 2. The use of ¨day¨ (Heb "yom") is often not a 24 hour period but just a period of time. (Much like our "back in the day" in English) This is easily shown to be the case when comparing chapter 1 (referring to separate "days" of creation) with Gen 2:4 which then referrs to ALL 6 "days" as one single "day" (again "yom").

    If you then compare Gen 2:1-3 regarding the seventh "rest" day with Hebrews 4:1-11, Paul comments that the seventh day is still in progress (Genesis states an end to the six creative "days" but never indicates an end to the seventh). This would mean that the seventh "day" was at least 4000 years long by Paul's day (punny point) and may still be in progress.

    Not to bore... just pointing out that it is not at all a stretch or twisting of logic or the scriptures to allow for science and the Bible to coincide.
  10. #250  
    i have to ask,, what happens if carbon dating gets to be real accurate,,, say down to hey 50 years give or take,,, With nothing but oral history to base things on beyond a given point,, and hmmm a lot of skeletons that dont figure into the bible... and im talking human ones.. not dinos.. which is another story all together, what then. With advances going on in science, it is entirely possible to get accurate dating. All I am going to say is if they do, then, where does that leave religions that are based on a single God, this applies to both muslim and christian as they spring from the same roots..
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  11. #251  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    i have to ask,, what happens if carbon dating gets to be real accurate,,, say down to hey 50 years give or take,,, With nothing but oral history to base things on beyond a given point,, and hmmm a lot of skeletons that dont figure into the bible... and im talking human ones.. not dinos.. which is another story all together, what then. With advances going on in science, it is entirely possible to get accurate dating. All I am going to say is if they do, then, where does that leave religions that are based on a single God, this applies to both muslim and christian as they spring from the same roots..
    It leaves it right where it is now -as an unquantifiable text.

    What it destroys are Biblical Literalists, who ignore years of Science & Theological study in favor of bone stupidity.
  12. #252  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    i have to ask,, what happens if carbon dating gets to be real accurate,,, say down to hey 50 years give or take... With advances going on in science, it is entirely possible to get accurate dating. All I am going to say is if they do, then, where does that leave religions that are based on a single God, this applies to both muslim and christian as they spring from the same roots..
    I've not heard or read of any serious geologists even speculating that such a thing were possible, but even if so, for argument's sake... I believe your question is based on the assumption that there either a)is no creator or b) the creator did not communicate through the Bible or c) both. Fair enough, but for argument's sake have you thought about what the answer might be if any of those assumptions were false? If the Creator communicated through the Bible, then he obviously knew when and how things occurred, so no real confirmed scientific fact could possibly conflict with that. With one's interpretation of the Bible, yes, but with what He actually did, no.

    Honestly, I am always amazed at how human arrogance (I mean as a race, not aimed at any individual in this thread) continues to prevail even though we continually prove to have no basis for it. Does anyone doubt that EVERY generation has looked back and laughed at the follies and foolish ideas of previous ones, while somehow believing that THEY have now reached the pinnacle of enlightenment?

    "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
    Douglas Adams, "Last Chance to See"
  13. #253  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    Honestly, I am always amazed at how human arrogance (I mean as a race, not aimed at any individual in this thread) continues to prevail even though we continually prove to have no basis for it. Does anyone doubt that EVERY generation has looked back and laughed at the follies and foolish ideas of previous ones, while somehow believing that THEY have now reached the pinnacle of enlightenment?

    "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
    Douglas Adams, "Last Chance to See"
    Yes, but that was then. We're smarter now.
    Just call me Berd.
  14. #254  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    Yes, but that was then. We're smarter now.
    Classic. I actually DID laugh out loud.
  15. #255  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    I've not heard or read of any serious geologists even speculating that such a thing were possible, but even if so, for argument's sake... I believe your question is based on the assumption that there either a)is no creator or b) the creator did not communicate through the Bible or c) both. Fair enough, but for argument's sake have you thought about what the answer might be if any of those assumptions were false? If the Creator communicated through the Bible, then he obviously knew when and how things occurred, so no real confirmed scientific fact could possibly conflict with that. With one's interpretation of the Bible, yes, but with what He actually did, no.

    Honestly, I am always amazed at how human arrogance (I mean as a race, not aimed at any individual in this thread) continues to prevail even though we continually prove to have no basis for it. Does anyone doubt that EVERY generation has looked back and laughed at the follies and foolish ideas of previous ones, while somehow believing that THEY have now reached the pinnacle of enlightenment?

    "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
    Douglas Adams, "Last Chance to See"
    first part,, hmm nice twist.. look at it rationally, explain to me a few things, like the new human like skeletons, dinos, all thousands and thousands of years old,, even with the accuracy factor being what it is, no explanation, heck no mention of them in the book about 25-30 percent of the world seems to follow, nothing in it at all.. i look at the native Americans, both north central and south america, much of Africa, no mention, none, all that book mentions is that tiny little piece of what we now call the middle east. if this "god" was is so powerful, would he not have had prophets or say a Jesus for them as well?? you speak of humanity's arrogance, no, not arrogance, just your average human with questions that can not be answered by a book, nor on blind faith. heck if blind faith was all it was needed, then this world would be one heck of a lot different, a lot of wackos over the ages went on blind faith. Many without any knowledge of your "god".

    I will put this as simply as possible, without meaning offense, if you need to believe in something other then yourself, then thats your problem. I prefer to depend on me, not on some omnipotent being, who, according to your book, started the world, and knows when the world is finished, if your god is all knowing, all seeing, then "god" knew that his "son" would fail, and die.
    this and many many other things are what lead me away from religion, do not misunderstand me, the whole basic tenet of be nice, in the newer version,lol, is a good standard, but just another man made system to explain what was then unexplainable to your average person back some 2000 years ago.. just my view on things..
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  16. #256  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    first part,, hmm nice twist.. look at it rationally, explain to me a few things, like the new human like skeletons, dinos, all thousands and thousands of years old,, even with the accuracy factor being what it is, no explanation, heck no mention of them in the book about 25-30 percent of the world seems to follow, nothing in it at all.. i look at the native Americans, both north central and south america, much of Africa, no mention, none, all that book mentions is that tiny little piece of what we now call the middle east. if this "god" was is so powerful, would he not have had prophets or say a Jesus for them as well??
    Keep in mind that the Bible was written between 1513 BCE and 100 CE; there were no future revisions or additions. It needed to be understandable to ALL people, so the language isn't modern science. The Bible's purpose was not to be a history of the universe or a science textbook; rather it is the statement of the Creator's purpose and dealings with relation to man.

    That said, your questions pose no scriptural problem. Genesis chapter 1 isn't detailed but it DOES match the fossil record in regards to order of appearance of life forms. Day 5 mentions "great sea monsters"... easily could include dinosaurs in this period of time before appearance of humans on day 6. (Remember that "day" is an unspecified, easily great length of time.

    Bible mentions North and Central Africa, southern Europe, and Spain. While not mentioning Asia and the Americas, it certainly doesn't conflict with there being people there. After the flood God commanded them to spread out and fill the earth, starting at about 2370 BCE (using Bible chronology) and this would easily allow for those populations. The Bible's message and teachings DO serve for all mankind; He started with a family head (Abraham) then a nation (Israel) and through Jesus this then spread to the whole world (ever read book of Acts?)


    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    according to your book, started the world, and knows when the world is finished, if your god is all knowing, all seeing, then "god" knew that his "son" would fail, and die.
    this and many many other things are what lead me away from religion,.
    As mentioned in an earlier post, it is a mistake to assume that mainstream religions are teaching what the Bible actually says. The Bible actually does NOT say that God knew that Adam would fail; quite the opposite. I would guess that most things that people reject about "religion" are not actually contained in the Bible.

    We all are free to choose what we accept as "truth"... I just personally feel it's a shame when people reject the Bible on the basis of things that it doesn't actually say.
  17. fubka's Avatar
    Posts
    36 Posts
    Global Posts
    40 Global Posts
    #257  
    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    Actually, he's citing a majority opinion in generations of Bible Study, dating at least as far back as Maimonides. The obsession with the "days" of Creation being literal days is a fairly recent thing.

    After all, how do you have a "day" without celestial bodies?
    Are you actually suggesting the Earth was here before all other objects in the universe?
  18. #258  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    Keep in mind that the Bible was written between 1513 BCE and 100 CE; there were no future revisions or additions. It needed to be understandable to ALL people, so the language isn't modern science. The Bible's purpose was not to be a history of the universe or a science textbook; rather it is the statement of the Creator's purpose and dealings with relation to man.

    That said, your questions pose no scriptural problem. Genesis chapter 1 isn't detailed but it DOES match the fossil record in regards to order of appearance of life forms. Day 5 mentions "great sea monsters"... easily could include dinosaurs in this period of time before appearance of humans on day 6. (Remember that "day" is an unspecified, easily great length of time.

    Bible mentions North and Central Africa, southern Europe, and Spain. While not mentioning Asia and the Americas, it certainly doesn't conflict with there being people there. After the flood God commanded them to spread out and fill the earth, starting at about 2370 BCE (using Bible chronology) and this would easily allow for those populations. The Bible's message and teachings DO serve for all mankind; He started with a family head (Abraham) then a nation (Israel) and through Jesus this then spread to the whole world (ever read book of Acts?)




    As mentioned in an earlier post, it is a mistake to assume that mainstream religions are teaching what the Bible actually says. The Bible actually does NOT say that God knew that Adam would fail; quite the opposite. I would guess that most things that people reject about "religion" are not actually contained in the Bible.

    We all are free to choose what we accept as "truth"... I just personally feel it's a shame when people reject the Bible on the basis of things that it doesn't actually say.
    well.. contrary to genetic makeups, which in my mind put paid to the whole flood idea, sea monsters?? okkk, we will agree to disagree,, your entitled to your belief system, as i am entitled to mine, to twist what you have said a little, i find it hard that people will blindly follow a book, about an Omnipotent being, written some time in the past, 2100 to 3500 years ago, by a multitude of people to be the be all to end all. Sorry, I choose to believe that which is concrete, its only been recently that religion has been comparing itself to actual history. I find it strange that with other written texts of the time, there is no mention of this book, I just look at it this way, over the 1000s of years we have had any sort of recorded history, we have had a slew of "gods" many around for far longer then this latest one. Heck, there is a far larger chunk of human kind that dont believe in it at all..
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  19. #259  
    I agree that all are absolutely entitled to choose their beliefs. It is, in fact, what the Bible itself would answer:
    2 Thes 3:2- "...faith is not a possession of all people"

    Psalm 53 also comments on it... King David's words; not mine
  20. fubka's Avatar
    Posts
    36 Posts
    Global Posts
    40 Global Posts
    #260  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey
    Genesis chapter 1 isn't detailed but it DOES match the fossil record in regards to order of appearance of life forms. Day 5 mentions "great sea monsters"... easily could include dinosaurs in this period of time before appearance of humans on day 6. (Remember that "day" is an unspecified, easily great length of time.
    lol, only a creationist would believe that humans preceded, the first, archaea, bacteria, and eukaryotes, let alone more complex organisms that followed.

    How does this "match the fossil record" ???????????/

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions