It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

page: 10
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Wow, welcome to the Modern era...you do know the big bang was postulated by a priest correct? It was his way of explaining genesis. The same priest also discovered the universe was expanding and he looked for that based off another scripture. Hubble ended up being credited with the find.

That's the dark secret of the Big Bang. It was invented by creationists.




posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: cooperton

Wow, welcome to the Modern era...you do know the big bang was postulated by a priest correct? It was his way of explaining genesis. The same priest also discovered the universe was expanding and he looked for that based off another scripture. Hubble ended up being credited with the find.

That's the dark secret of the Big Bang. It was invented by creationists.


Doesn't at all change the fact the Big Bang theory doesn't at all match up with the creation myth.... Wasn't the monk in question murdered by his fellow priests, specifically because it disagreed with the biblical story? Lol

The bible can be and has been interpreted a million different ways. Kinda like nostradomas's quatrains. It can mean whatever you want it to.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

No, where the hell did you get that version? The pope himself applauded the mans work...This was recent bro, he wasn't a monk, he was a priest.

For your information, a young earth (6k years) is a MODERN CHRISTIAN interpretation of the age of the earth. Jews and early Christians held that the creation days were an indeterminate amount of time.

Georges Lemaitre, read about it.
edit on 24-2-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04 its easily calculated based on what is said.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04 I wonder if anything else was misinterpreted




posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04 Hilariously ironic to hear you mentioning fact checks lol. The human race cant be propagated from two individuals. Forget your fairytales and just focus on what's provable.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

awsome



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


are u still taliking about this lol



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Fromabove

Water also consists of three atoms. The number three is often said to be the number of God.

...and which god is this water molecule evidence for?



edit on 24-2-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Georges Lemaitre, read about it.

A religious person was involved in the scientific work underlying The Big Bang Theory.

So? That doesn't prove the religion is true. It's not even evidence it's true since its already been shown how very different it is to the description in Genesis.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Where did I say it's makes religion true? I'm saying the idea in the OP is old hat.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I made that assumption. If I did so in error I apologize.

Concerning your other thoughts. The Earth being 6000 years old is the result of interpreting what the scripture says. Link. There is more in the Bible to suggest that age than there is to suggest each Day was in fact more than a day. In my opinion anyways.
edit on 25-2-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

Lol. Same difference in my book.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

That is a modern interpretation of what scriptures say. That viewpoint started to develop around the 7th century CE with the publication of the Masoretic Text

Older documents indicate that Jews held the viewpoint that the world had existed for some indeterminate amount of time prior to Adam being created. I've discussed in other threads how some modern Jewish scholars believe that the Jewish calendar actually starts at the expulsion of the garden (so the story goes) as a way to countdown to a prophecy for a messiah, (5k , 5500 or 6k years respectively depending on which theologians you talk to...) as there would have been no reason to track time prior to that point. For example, Adam supposedly did not age prior to being expelled, so he most probably did not start tracking his age until he started to die. Some midrash hold that Adam was told he would die in a thousand years, so he may have started counting down.

Jewish views on evolution and age of the earth


the "first week" of Creation lasted for extremely long periods of time. See Anafim on Rabbenu Bachya's Sefer Ikkarim 2:18; Midrash Bere# Rabbah 9.


For example, Talmud Chaggiga 13b-14a states that on the 6th day there were 974 generations before God created Adam. So depending on the scholar roughly 80-120~ years (Maximum age considered for a human in modern time). So after the "sixth day" started, but prior to the creation of Adam, there were roughly 120k years by modern standard of average life span; However if you go off a Jewish view of the life span of the Patriarchs up to Noah, you could be talking 500-700k years.

One must remember the bible is not a scientific book. It can't be looked at as a scientific book. It is a religious manuscript. The bible should not ever be used for scientific understanding.

I believe understanding the true meaning of a verse can be uncovered with science, and any ideas of men which disagree with observable science are simply misunderstandings/misinterpretations.

I rejected organized religion long ago, admittedly from my pursuit of a career in science. Dogma often disagrees with what we can observe. Once I stripped off the yoke of oppression I was able to see the scripture for what it was, and I don't personally feel any of it disagrees with what we can confirm scientifically.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: Barcs


are u still taliking about this lol


Thanks for your meaningful contributions to this thread. Now I believe recess is over, get back to school before I call your mommy.
edit on 25-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I couldn't agree with you more. The fallacy of religious types is the view that people who don't believe in god can't be happy. My brother is Agnostic and by all accounts seems like an extremely happy individual. He has a job he likes, he has a family he loves and he lives a simple life despite the fact that his income could afford him a more embellished lifestyle.

While I do not subscribe to a religion I am definitely "spiritual" but I would never assume someone isn't happy "for real" just because they are agnostic or atheist.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

and I don't personally feel any of it disagrees with what we can confirm scientifically.

You said the Bible should never be used for scientific understanding. Then you say we should be able to confirm it scientifically.

Okay so what about all these issues with Genesis that have already been surfaced [not the indeterminate time issue] how do you feel they are all resolved as being compatible with science?

The logistics of Noah's Ark, nearly 1000 year lifespans of early humans, Jonah living in a whale for 3 days, Jesus coming back to life after 3 days of being dead, walking on water, turning water to wine... how should we be able to confirm these scientifically?

Thanks for your response by the way. I found it informative and interesting.


I would never assume someone isn't happy "for real" just because they are agnostic or atheist.

A refreshing position from a religious person. Much appreciated. There are good moral religious and non-religious people. Happy religious and non-religious people. It's amazing how often religious claim non-believers must be miserable and void of purpose in life...

I know you said spiritual and not religious, but someone who believes in Christian canon is religious to me *shrug*
edit on 25-2-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I'm not saying the bible can be confirmed scientifically, I'm saying I don't think it disagrees with confirmed science.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I'm not saying the bible can be confirmed scientifically, I'm saying I don't think it disagrees with confirmed science.


When you can interpret the bible to literally say anything you want it to, it doesn't disagree with anything. That is one of the reasons the bible is flawed. By being able to say anything, it doesn't actually end up saying anything.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You can't really interpret it to say whatever you want. That is a fallacy of the opposing view. More than likely if some view or dogma disagrees with observable science, that view/dogma is just flat out wrong. The problem is those people don't like to admit they were wrong.




top topics



 
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join