• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I think i've discovered something...

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
11,316
Reaction score
2,413
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
This idea popped in my head after I read a comment on these very forums. Supposedly, evolution is supposed to disprove the bible because it goes against the literal meaning of God creating the heavens and the earth in 6 days. I think the logic was... Evolution disproves bible, which disproves God, which disproves christianity.

Now normally, I would just ignore it, if it wasn't for the same thought I had when I read the Masoretic texts of genesis, 3 months ago.

This only works if christianity continues to hold the belief that it holds today. Not that God created the heavens and earth in 6 days, rather, God created the everything in 6 days. This belief, that christians hold today, come to find out, is not biblical. From Genesis 1:1-2 of the Masoretic Texts, translated literally.

1 In the beginning of God creating the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth had been without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

Tenses mean everything people. There are countless lessons to be learned from these passages but the important one is that when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth HAD ALREADY BEEN THERE, it was just without form and void of all life(and apparently, water was already there, a deep ocean of water.)

Now we see where the ancient, and particularly jewish idea that the earth was created and destroyed, perhaps dozens of times before creation, comes from. That idea is biblical; the idea that there was no earth before God started his creation business, is not. This destroys the atheist's argument. The bible really says nothing at all of evolution/abiogenesis. It just opens it up, probably purposely by God himself, to mere individual interpretation.

The stranger part is, the ancient christians, Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, etc. Probably already knew of this, as did many of their followers who were very fluent in the old laws and Hebrew, and therefore, failed to spread it because sharing that idea was not needed at the time. One can see how, when the catholic church became popular and installed their perverted interpretations, the meaning would have been lost. Probably the first scribal error in the translation from hebrew to latin to german to english.

Now, is this biblical approval of evolution? maybe, maybe not. Depends on the point of view. One thing is for certain, it's not disapproved as everyone thinks.

One could say, this is almost an ultra-literal interpretation. But hey, it's the masoretic texts, you can't really beat those.

So the lesson is, the world as we know it was created in 6 days, doesn't necessarily mean the earth, this rock we stand on in the solar system, was created in 6 days.
 
Last edited:

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I have never understood the argument that evolution-- or, indeed, any of the theories of science-- disproved the Bible or vice versa. While the Bible claims that God created the heavens and the earth (a claim I dispute for religious reasons), it makes no mention of how it was done; the only concern is how long it took, which is referred to as six days. In the absence of the heavens, the concept of a "day" is meaningless.

Abiogenesis does not necessarily mean atheogenesis. There is no evidence that life generated spontaneously from unliving matter, and nothing to suggest that it was not caused by external forces, or that the development of life as we know it from these primitive life forms was not guided by unseen hands.

Even the Big Bang theory is silent on the matter of where that initial particle of super-dense matter originated, what caused it to explode, or what may have existed prior to it.

Atheism versus theism is fundamentally a religious argument. Science has nothing to say on the matter.
 

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
11,316
Reaction score
2,413
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
I have never understood the argument that evolution-- or, indeed, any of the theories of science-- disproved the Bible or vice versa.
Oh well, that's good. I believe the comment was made by toothypic...or Nymphetamine...i can't remember which.

While the Bible claims that God created the heavens and the earth (a claim I dispute for religious reasons), it makes no mention of how it was done; the only concern is how long it took, which is referred to as six days. In the absence of the heavens, the concept of a "day" is meaningless.

Abiogenesis does not necessarily mean atheogenesis. There is no evidence that life generated spontaneously from unliving matter, and nothing to suggest that it was not caused by external forces, or that the development of life as we know it from these primitive life forms was not guided by unseen hands.

Even the Big Bang theory is silent on the matter of where that initial particle of super-dense matter originated, what caused it to explode, or what may have existed prior to it.

Atheism versus theism is fundamentally a religious argument. Science has nothing to say on the matter.
To the contrary, it says exactly how. He spoke it into existence. Which is also why it is implied that God created language.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,403
Reaction score
5,004
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I think one of the things that causes this type of debate is that the bible blends mythology with actual historical events, and doesn't distinguish between the two. And that leads to arguments when religious people point to it and say "well, since I can prove that part X is true then it must all be true" and non-religious people respond "well, since I can prove that part Y is false then it must all be false".

More specifically on the topic at hand, though I don't believe most of the christian mythos, I don't think that evolution proves there is no god. I think that at most it proves that the creation story in the bible is not literally true.
 

iangb

Lurker
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
2,112
Location
Birmingham, UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Interesting reading - thanks! One of these days I'll dig up an old mini-essay of mine on another solution that lets both literalists and scientists be happy...

Oh, and massive agreement on the whole 'science does not disprove god' thing. Science is agnostic about the whole thing.
 

Simon W. Moon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
24,587
Reaction score
9,279
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
somehow, somewhere along the way doctrinally inerrant became conflated with literally inerrant
 

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
11,316
Reaction score
2,413
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
I think it's how we define literal.

The sadducees in Jesus's time only believed in the literal interpretation, and therefore literally inerrant.
The pharisees used both literal interpretations, as well as figurative, spiritual, and some sects, mystical interpretations. Thus, the bible was literally inerrent where it was literal, and figuratively inerrent where it was figurative, and so on and so forth.
And these 2 groups fought each other on a daily bases.

Today, in judaism, only the pharisaic beliefs survive today, to the very letter. Jesus was arguably a pharisee and rejected the sadducees because their literal interpretation told them that there would be a no resurrection, whereas the pharisees had replaced the heart for tradition. I think a few christians may be more like sadducees rather than like pharisees.
 
Last edited:

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I thought there was interpretation where one of God's days was thousands of our years.

I like the idea of a figurative interpretation which leaves both creationism in place and allows for evolution.

The full first verses of the bible, has some interesting interpretation in the more esoteric traditions. In the kabbalic tradition. Especially 1, 2, 3 and 4.

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters. 3 God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw the light, and saw that it was good. God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." There was evening and there was morning, one day."
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
This idea popped in my head after I read a comment on these very forums. Supposedly, evolution is supposed to disprove the bible because it goes against the literal meaning of God creating the heavens and the earth in 6 days. I think the logic was... Evolution disproves bible, which disproves God, which disproves christianity.

Now normally, I would just ignore it, if it wasn't for the same thought I had when I read the Masoretic texts of genesis, 3 months ago.

This only works if christianity continues to hold the belief that it holds today. Not that God created the heavens and earth in 6 days, rather, God created the everything in 6 days. This belief, that christians hold today, come to find out, is not biblical. From Genesis 1:1-2 of the Masoretic Texts, translated literally.

1 In the beginning of God creating the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth had been without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

Tenses mean everything people. There are countless lessons to be learned from these passages but the important one is that when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth HAD ALREADY BEEN THERE, it was just without form and void of all life(and apparently, water was already there, a deep ocean of water.)

Now we see where the ancient, and particularly jewish idea that the earth was created and destroyed, perhaps dozens of times before creation, comes from. That idea is biblical; the idea that there was no earth before God started his creation business, is not. This destroys the atheist's argument. The bible really says nothing at all of evolution/abiogenesis. It just opens it up, probably purposely by God himself, to mere individual interpretation.

The stranger part is, the ancient christians, Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, etc. Probably already knew of this, as did many of their followers who were very fluent in the old laws and Hebrew, and therefore, failed to spread it because sharing that idea was not needed at the time. One can see how, when the catholic church became popular and installed their perverted interpretations, the meaning would have been lost. Probably the first scribal error in the translation from hebrew to latin to german to english.

Now, is this biblical approval of evolution? maybe, maybe not. Depends on the point of view. One thing is for certain, it's not disapproved as everyone thinks.

One could say, this is almost an ultra-literal interpretation. But hey, it's the masoretic texts, you can't really beat those.

So the lesson is, the world as we know it was created in 6 days, doesn't necessarily mean the earth, this rock we stand on in the solar system, was created in 6 days.

When I was a kid I always thought that "there wasn't day/night until after God created it" - so - he had to create the Sun and everything before 'time' or 'day/night' was calculable - that was sufficient for me as a child to explain what was between the lines.

But, as an adult, my thought process is that *if* God was real - and *he* instructed what to write in the Bible. Then why would he use chronological terms of 'day' and 'night' to describe creation to people at all? I think that's the falacy of it all - day/night is biological awareness. A God wouldn't require it to function or explain his acts unless the God was more like Zeus - so - man made it up.

Everything in the Bible is written within human-limits. Limits of knowledge. Limits of math. Limits of science. Limits of medicine. Limits of geography. Everything in the Bible is written according to these limitations and advances only when knowledge expands these limitations. There's nothing *in* the Bible that those people in that area at that time didn't *know* about.

That's because there was no God to impart knowledge that wasn't learned from experience. There was no Jesus to say "don't drink that water, it's contaminated - boil it first" - if Jesus was really rockin his sandals don't you think he'd make it his utmost duty to education and fully inform people of the basics of humanity and safety rather than this supposed "concerned God" who just sidelines himself while humans piddle around and sort of try to figure the world out?

God either doesn't exist and we made up all these things in various religions to try to explain the way the world worked . . . like all other stories of creation and ponderances of philosophy dating back to time before the Ancient Greeks.
Or God does exist and he's very unconcerned with us and we're more of a science experiment with little oversight.
 
Last edited:

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
This idea popped in my head after I read a comment on these very forums. Supposedly, evolution is supposed to disprove the bible because it goes against the literal meaning of God creating the heavens and the earth in 6 days. I think the logic was... Evolution disproves bible, which disproves God, which disproves christianity.

Now normally, I would just ignore it, if it wasn't for the same thought I had when I read the Masoretic texts of genesis, 3 months ago.

This only works if christianity continues to hold the belief that it holds today. Not that God created the heavens and earth in 6 days, rather, God created the everything in 6 days. This belief, that christians hold today, come to find out, is not biblical. From Genesis 1:1-2 of the Masoretic Texts, translated literally.

1 In the beginning of God creating the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth had been without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

Tenses mean everything people. There are countless lessons to be learned from these passages but the important one is that when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth HAD ALREADY BEEN THERE, it was just without form and void of all life(and apparently, water was already there, a deep ocean of water.)

Now we see where the ancient, and particularly jewish idea that the earth was created and destroyed, perhaps dozens of times before creation, comes from. That idea is biblical; the idea that there was no earth before God started his creation business, is not. This destroys the atheist's argument. The bible really says nothing at all of evolution/abiogenesis. It just opens it up, probably purposely by God himself, to mere individual interpretation.

The stranger part is, the ancient christians, Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, etc. Probably already knew of this, as did many of their followers who were very fluent in the old laws and Hebrew, and therefore, failed to spread it because sharing that idea was not needed at the time. One can see how, when the catholic church became popular and installed their perverted interpretations, the meaning would have been lost. Probably the first scribal error in the translation from hebrew to latin to german to english.

Now, is this biblical approval of evolution? maybe, maybe not. Depends on the point of view. One thing is for certain, it's not disapproved as everyone thinks.

One could say, this is almost an ultra-literal interpretation. But hey, it's the masoretic texts, you can't really beat those.

So the lesson is, the world as we know it was created in 6 days, doesn't necessarily mean the earth, this rock we stand on in the solar system, was created in 6 days.

Day-Age creationism is almost as goofy as Young Earth creationism : Pharyngula

You don't see the the goofiness in the claims that:
1) Earth was formed before the sun
2) An aquatic universe
3) Grass and flowering plants coming before all other plants when they were in fact late arrivals
4) An early watery earth
5) The sun coming after the planets and after plants were already on earth
6) Birds and whales preeceding other animals.

How much verifiable evidence do you have to disregard to think this story is true? It should be painfully obvious that it is a myth from people making guesswork that has been proven false in modern times.

----
1) Earth was formed before the sun
Day 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.And the earth was without form, and void;
Day 4: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


2) An aquatic universe
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.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

3) Grass and flowering plants coming before all other plants when they were in fact late arrivals
Day 3: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

4) An early watery earth
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

5) The sun coming after the planets and after plants were already on earth
Day 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.And the earth was without form, and void;

Day 3: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Day 4: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

6) Birds and whales preceding other animals.
Day 5: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Day 6: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,235
Reaction score
14,250
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Evolution is goofy :) If one believes the premise that God is almighty then why would anything be strange for Him? Truth is, is that the cosmos point to a creator and a young beginning.
 

iangb

Lurker
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
2,112
Location
Birmingham, UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Evolution is goofy :) If one believes the premise that God is almighty then why would anything be strange for Him? Truth is, is that the cosmos point to a creator and a young beginning.
You've said this several times, Digsbe, but each time someone challenges you on it you pull up an AIG-esque 'list of reasons' and refuse to discuss it any further...

The cosmos points to an initial 'cause' of some sort, but the nature of that cause is incredibly unknown - whether it be a previous End, some extra-dimensional wierdness or a big dude with a beard. The cosmos most certainly does not point to a 'young beginning'.
 

lizzie

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
28,580
Reaction score
31,552
Location
between two worlds
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I see no reason why it has to be one or the other, and cannot be both.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,235
Reaction score
14,250
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You've said this several times, Digsbe, but each time someone challenges you on it you pull up an AIG-esque 'list of reasons' and refuse to discuss it any further...
I typically leave those threads because 3-4 people quote my same post and make personal attacks or don't address my content. I would be happy to have a 1 on 1 debate with no flaming or other's interrupting.
The cosmos points to an initial 'cause' of some sort, but the nature of that cause is incredibly unknown - whether it be a previous End, some extra-dimensional wierdness or a big dude with a beard. The cosmos most certainly does not point to a 'young beginning'.
Things like moons (and especially our moon), the magnetic fields around planets and comets would point to a younger universe.
 

iangb

Lurker
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
2,112
Location
Birmingham, UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I typically leave those threads because 3-4 people quote my same post and make personal attacks or don't address my content. I would be happy to have a 1 on 1 debate with no flaming or other's interrupting.

Things like moons (and especially our moon), the magnetic fields around planets and comets would point to a younger universe.
I'm quite happy to have a debate on this - and I detest ad hom sidelining, so sounds good to me!
You haven't been very specific in detail here, but I'm guessing you're talking about moon dust and magnetic field decay? I haven't heard of the 'comets' one... I will wait and see some more detail before I comment on any of them, lest I accidentally set up a straw man.

EDIT: In fact, we could even be bold and start a new thread on it - and just ignore any douchebaggery that rears it's ugly head.
 
Last edited:

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Things like moons (and especially our moon), the magnetic fields around planets and comets would point to a younger universe.

Do you have any peer-reviewed papers done by accredited institutions to support this? (the gold-standard of science). Or just a website done by long since discredited pundits and opiners?

What do you have to say regarding palentology, dating methods, genetics, cosmology, astronomy, geology, the grand Canyon, light from distant galaxies, ice cores, hominid fossils, to name but some examples of things which support an earth well over a million years old (4.55 billion years old to be exact)

Is it all a conspiracy by atheists and/or the scientific community that the data so strongly supports and old earth and solar system?

Give us your BEST evidence for a young earth.
 

Anarcho-fascist

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
1,069
Reaction score
264
Location
T E X A S !
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Things like moons (and especially our moon), the magnetic fields around planets and comets would point to a younger universe.
Here's my response from another thread to this link that digsbe gave.
"Comets—portents of doom or indicators of youth? (Available in Russian)
Comets and the Age of the Solar System (Technical)
Kuiper Belt objects and the short-period comets ‘dilemma’ (for evolutionists)
More problems for the ‘Oort comet cloud’?
"
In these they say that there is no evidence for the Oort cloud, and that we haven't found enough objects in the Kuiper belt, and the ones we have found are much larger than normal comets (not surprising, since they are easier to see). Where exactly do they propose comets come from? The "technical" one says "It is obvious that periodic comets must be replenished, or else they would be exhausted in thousands of years."

In "Ganymede: the surprisingly magnetic moon" they say that scientists can't explain Ganymede's magnetic field, and the current mainstream hypotheses don't have much support. It then goes on to say:
In the model proposed by creationist Dr Russell Humphreys, God created planetary magnetic fields by initially aligning the spin magnetic moments of the protons in water molecules.3 The cores of objects such as Earth and even moons would have been created initially as water, formed with the nuclear spins of the hydrogen atoms aligned. Then, some of the water was miraculously transmuted to other elements. In this way planet cores were formed and converted to being apparently composed of iron and iron sulfide as they are today.
No comment.

In "Mercury—the tiny planet that causes big problems for evolution" they claim that the hypothesis that a collision early in the planet's history caused the outer layers to not be there today is ad hoc. That hypothesis in not the only one, and it explains why Mercury looks like the Earth with it's outer layers stripped off. The article goes on to say that Mercury shouldn't have a magnetic field because it's so small that it's core should be solid. Yes, scientists didn't expect to find a magnetic field, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility that Mercury is still partially liquid. Another hypothesis is that Mercury is solid, and the planet's rocks were magnetized when the planet had a liquid core, and kept their magnetism after the planet solidified. Mercury's magnetic field is about 1% the strength of Earth's.

Pick one argument please.
 

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
11,316
Reaction score
2,413
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Day-Age creationism is almost as goofy as Young Earth creationism : Pharyngula

You don't see the the goofiness in the claims that:
1) Earth was formed before the sun
2) An aquatic universe
3) Grass and flowering plants coming before all other plants when they were in fact late arrivals
4) An early watery earth
5) The sun coming after the planets and after plants were already on earth
6) Birds and whales preeceding other animals.

How much verifiable evidence do you have to disregard to think this story is true? It should be painfully obvious that it is a myth from people making guesswork that has been proven false in modern times.

----
1) Earth was formed before the sun
Day 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.And the earth was without form, and void;
Day 4: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


2) An aquatic universe
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.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

3) Grass and flowering plants coming before all other plants when they were in fact late arrivals
Day 3: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

4) An early watery earth
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

5) The sun coming after the planets and after plants were already on earth
Day 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.And the earth was without form, and void;

Day 3: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Day 4: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

6) Birds and whales preceding other animals.
Day 5: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Day 6: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

I already addressed your points in this paragraph:

Now we see where the ancient, and particularly jewish idea that the earth was created and destroyed, perhaps dozens of times before creation, comes from. That idea is biblical; the idea that there was no earth before God started his creation business, is not. This destroys the atheist's argument. The bible really says nothing at all of evolution/abiogenesis. It just opens it up, probably purposely by God himself, to mere individual interpretation.
In short, we really don't know. Even in the Bible there are not 1, but 2 creation stories. We don't know, Genesis does not go into much detail.

Also, if you read the masoretic texts, they are written as poetic, possible alluding to the possiblity that it is not literal, but either figurative, spiritual, or maybe even mystical. Again, the mystical interpretation is most radical, stating that religion and science are universal truths and as a result, are impossible to conflict, and would only conflict if we have the wrong idea about either science or religion.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Now we see where the ancient, and particularly jewish idea that the earth was created and destroyed, perhaps dozens of times before creation, comes from. That idea is biblical; the idea that there was no earth before God started his creation business, is not. This destroys the atheist's argument. The bible really says nothing at all of evolution/abiogenesis. It just opens it up, probably purposely by God himself, to mere individual interpretation.

The stranger part is, the ancient christians, Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, etc. Probably already knew of this, as did many of their followers who were very fluent in the old laws and Hebrew, and therefore, failed to spread it because sharing that idea was not needed at the time. One can see how, when the catholic church became popular and installed their perverted interpretations, the meaning would have been lost. Probably the first scribal error in the translation from hebrew to latin to german to english.

There is a lot about what the Bible actually says and what most people think the Bible says that doesn't line up. Try following the time-line of the fall of Lucifer in the Bible and match it up to what most people will tell you, emphatically, happened between God and Lucifer. It doesn't jive. In fact, the modern view of the falling out between God and Satan comes directly from Paradise Lost, not the Bible.

Whenever anyone says that they can disprove something about the Bible, my first question to them is to explain to me, in detail, what they think it is the Bible says that they are attempting to disprove. Ninety percent of the time, they are attempting to disprove something that isn't even in there.
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
There is a lot about what the Bible actually says and what most people think the Bible says that doesn't line up. Try following the time-line of the fall of Lucifer in the Bible and match it up to what most people will tell you, emphatically, happened between God and Lucifer. It doesn't jive. In fact, the modern view of the falling out between God and Satan comes directly from Paradise Lost, not the Bible.

Whenever anyone says that they can disprove something about the Bible, my first question to them is to explain to me, in detail, what they think it is the Bible says that they are attempting to disprove. Ninety percent of the time, they are attempting to disprove something that isn't even in there.

That's not because the the person has it wrong, its because no two christians can or ever will agree on what the Bible says. Its known as the "Big Book of Multiple Choice" for a reason. The goal posts are constantly being moved. That's what happens when people think an ancient book is full of facts rather than a compilation of mythical stories from ancient people who were simply trying to make sense of the very mysterious and sometimes terrifying world around them.

Galileo would agree :wink:.
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
:roll::roll::roll:

I'll rephrase with less hyperbole.

Christians have vastly different beliefs when it comes to the correct method to interpret the Bible.
It comes as no surpise that you find counter-arguments to interpretations other than your own, irrelevant to your intepretation.

What is your understanding of Genesis and how do you reconcile it with its apparant contradiction with biology, geology, cosmology, and astronomy?
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'll rephrase with less hyperbole.

Christians have vastly different beliefs when it comes to the correct method to interpret the Bible.
It comes as no surpise that you find counter-arguments to interpretations other than your own, irrelevant to your intepretation.

What is your understanding of Genesis and how do you reconcile it with its apparant contradiction with biology, geology, cosmology, and astronomy?

Basically I think the Bible, and Genesis in particular, should be used less as a calendar and more as a moral allegory. Anyone who attempts to use a creation myth that rose out of a combination of all Mesopotamian myths as anything more by trying to apply scientific principles is only fooling themselves into diminishing the point of faith by questioning its foundation in the fact that you accept it knowing you cannot prove it.
 

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
11,316
Reaction score
2,413
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
There is a lot about what the Bible actually says and what most people think the Bible says that doesn't line up. Try following the time-line of the fall of Lucifer in the Bible and match it up to what most people will tell you, emphatically, happened between God and Lucifer. It doesn't jive. In fact, the modern view of the falling out between God and Satan comes directly from Paradise Lost, not the Bible.

Whenever anyone says that they can disprove something about the Bible, my first question to them is to explain to me, in detail, what they think it is the Bible says that they are attempting to disprove. Ninety percent of the time, they are attempting to disprove something that isn't even in there.
What isn't a common belief, but should be i think, and definitly a traditional belief among jewish circles since ancient times, is that science is truth, yet so is the bible(well...the old testament), therefore they cannot contradict, in fact, religion and science are converge over time, not diverge. Any contradictions are due to gross misinterpretations in either science or religion.

Quite a revolutionary concept, considering the time we live in.
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Basically I think the Bible, and Genesis in particular, should be used less as a calendar and more as a moral allegory.
1) Why should the genesis story be taken allegorically rather than literally?
2) By what means or method do you determine what parts of the Bible should be taken literally and others allegorically?

Before modern biology, geology, cosmology, and astronomy, belief in the literal truth of the genesis account was not silly and far-fetched. Only in recent times when science has shown the blatant falsehood of such claims is it silly to believe in the literal truth of the Genesis account. Even today, we have people who continue to believe in the literal truth (or close to literal truth). Digsbe is one such person.

Anyone who attempts to use a creation myth that rose out of a combination of all Mesopotamian myths as anything more by trying to apply scientific principles is only fooling themselves into diminishing the point of faith by questioning its foundation in the fact that you accept it knowing you cannot prove it.
It might surprise you to know that even some Christians reject the notion that "faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths". Catholic doctrine rejects fideism because the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that God's existence can indeed be demonstrated by reason. Faith plays a part but they nonetheless recognize and concede that fideism offers no test to truth, that it offers no way to adjudicate between conflicting fideistic claims, that fideistic truth claims cannot be settled.

Do you claim otherwise? Do you claim:
1) that "faith" offers a test to truth?
2) that "faith" offers a way to adjudicate between conflicting faith claims?
3) that truth claims based on faith can be settled?

Fideism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Top Bottom