Genesis was written by biased men.

reply to post by Sigismundus


Has it ever occurred to you that "truth" may not be logical? And just for the record according to Genesis there was light before there were suns and stars

Genesis 1:3

And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

Originally posted by Nichiren

Originally posted by Praetorian Guard

And why did Satan turn against the Creator? Simple answer, really. God created all his sentient beings with a creative mind, freedom to act, and with the possibility to act contrary to God's will.

Here is another conundrum for me. Since God is omnipotent and omniscient He knew that planting the tree of knowledge would result in the serpent making the move. He also knew that Eve wasn't able to resist the temptation.

I asked in my first post: why did God set up his own children for failure and then acts totally surprised?

Free will doesn't apply, because God knew what He set in motion by planting the tree.

I'm looking forward to reading your replies.

This is a common point that is difficult for the human mind to comprehend, it is optional for God to look into the future of individual souls. He doesn't automatically do it. The best way to explain it is TV/Internet/Radio. I can use those technologies to find things out if I want to, but I can also choose not to use them. God has a future view of anybody or anything at his disposal, but it isn't automatic, and it is not forced on him. How do I know that, you might ask, because some good people end up going bad in the bible and some bad people end going good. They weren't fated by God or denied his support, they acted on free will and chose their own destiny.

As for Genesis much is misunderstood about this account, literal verse's symbolic. Suffice to say when you understand it, it does make sense.

Originally posted by Nichiren

Also, "Let there be light" came after the earth was created.

It's possible that planets may have condensed in protoplanetary discs even before the parent star ignites to life.

A lot of things we aren't certain in this up to now. Formations of stars and planets are still theories up to now. First and foremost, it's nearly impossible to detect small planets condensing out of gases in other very distant star systems outside our own. And the process of say, starbirth or planetary birth could take hundreds to million years, simply far too long last a human lifetime, even a generation/civilization to create a surviving record for generations to come...

We have no facts at hand, nothing to compared with but with other bunch of theories. So I don't think for that part I quoted that it's disagreeing with anything.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by ahnggk]

Hi Nichiren

So you REALLY BELIEVE that herbs, plants, trees, grass were all 'created' on a pre-existent flat earth surrounded by a solid dome (Heb. Re'qiak lit 'beaten bowl') BEFORE the stars, the sun and the moon?

Did you ever take a basic astronomy class? An intro to astro-physics class? A paleo-Hebrew class? A comparative religions class?

Just curious is all...

At any rate, there is not much much of what we today (or what the ancient Greeks ! ) would call ' pure logic' involved in Genesis chapter 1---

The language is post-Exilic post Babylonbian influenced (check out the number of Babylonian Loan Words e.g. Hebrew Tehom / Aramaic Tehomah from the Babylopinian chaos Monster 'Tiamat' which in Genesis Chapter 1 is used for 'the watery Deep', etc.) also hymnic-ritual-mythical-magical (i.e. ritual spells, not logic, ultimately) ,and certainly not 'hard science' in the modern post Enlightenment sense of the word. That is to say if you examine the Hezekielite (c. BCE 560) unpointed (un-vowelled) paleo-Hebrew words that are actually on the page of the various versions (e.g. the Hebrew Vorlage 'underlay' to the later LXX Greek, or the much later Masoretic pointed versions, or the Dead Sea Scroll copies, none of which match letter for letter by the way !)

Hard science says there is no Solid Dome-Bowl surrounding a flat earth in the center of everything...earth is semi-spherical body surrounding an orange dwarf of a star not in the middle of anything in our Galaxy, which is just one Galaxy out of Thousands of trillions of like systems...we are not the middle of anything, and there is no dome surrounding us.

Mythical language is able to say 'man is the center of creation' but science certainly cannot make such claims. At least not what we call 'modern empirical science' which DOES make use of things like LOGIC and HARD EVIDENCE to back up their theories.

Science and Religion/ritualmagic use different frames of reference. To look at Genesis Chapter 1 from a scientifc point of view only (i.e. this happened this way because the post Exilic Jews said so, so there !) is a violation of the text which is ritual not empirical...

Clear as mud?



[edit on 8-10-2009 by Sigismundus]

reply to post by Sigismundus


Hi Sigismundus,

I'm just saying that outside of time and space, and that's where IMHO the "creator" lives, anything is possible and logic as we know it cannot be applied.

Waiting for John Matrix to drop by and answer all questions.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Nichiren]

reply to post by Nichiren


I don't think the universe is billions of years old here is why..

Scientists for a long time have observed a supernova about once every 30 years or so, and have only found less than 300 supernova rings so far in the galaxy.

300 X 30 is about 9,000 years old If the universe truly was billions of years old scientists would be able to find exponentially more of these supernova rings in the sky.

They aren't there.

You invited me to comment here but it appears that you have quite a few experts on what the Bible is or isn't.

All I can say to you and your believers is that if your belief system makes you a more loving, patient, humble, and meek person, then go with it.

As for me....the bible teaches me about the fall of man, redemption, salvation, eternal life, God's Love, mercy, grace, justice, the dual natures(fallen nature and divine nature); two paths(broad one and narrow one); two spirits (the spirit of this world and the Spirit of God); good and evil, etc.

Our fallen human nature is the very conduit through which Satan and his demons do their dirty work.

The Divine nature is the conduit for spiritual knowledge and divine wisdom.

When one turns to the divine nature, which is: humility, meekness, patience and love; they are turning their back on the old nature which consists of covetousness, envy, pride and wrath.

You can't walk in two directions at the same time. If you live according to the Spirit of God you will make humility, meekness, patience, and love the center of your life and character, and you will not be living according to the old fallen nature.

The old nature will kick and scream from time to time, but hold fast and the new Spirit and nature that God has given you will prevail.

reply to post by John Matrix
Very good post my friend, I like the way your brain is wired.

kudos 2 you

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Nichiren

 

I don't think the universe is billions of years old here is why..

Scientists for a long time have observed a supernova about once every 30 years or so, and have only found less than 300 supernova rings so far in the galaxy.

300 X 30 is about 9,000 years old If the universe truly was billions of years old scientists would be able to find exponentially more of these supernova rings in the sky.

They aren't there.

Very good point. Do you have any articles you can point us to regarding this?

As you might know, I am a creationist...please check my profile page.

[edit on 21/10/09 by John Matrix]

reply to post by John Matrix
It's a long video, not sure at which time/frame it begins, but here is the video:

See "Seminar 1"

Per your request, I'll look for secular documentation and present my findings in due time....

reply to post by John Matrix

"2. Too few supernova remnants.

Crab Nebula (photo courtesy of NASA)

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3"

Here

And the info for the website itself is footnoted w/ "3", which is:

Davies, K., Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1994), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 175–184

Which can be ordered HERE.

(I will look for a secular source as well)

Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


They are only talking about the nearby part of our little galaxy in which they are able to observe the supernovae. Do you realize how many more galaxies are out there?

I love when science gets distorted to make a belief system fit. Get the facts straight and then you can bend them as you wish LOL

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Nichiren

 

I don't think the universe is billions of years old here is why..

Scientists for a long time have observed a supernova about once every 30 years or so, and have only found less than 300 supernova rings so far in the galaxy.

300 X 30 is about 9,000 years old If the universe truly was billions of years old scientists would be able to find exponentially more of these supernova rings in the sky.

They aren't there.

Very good point. Do you have any articles you can point us to regarding this?

As you might know, I am a creationist...please check my profile page.

[edit on 21/10/09 by John Matrix]

But why are you a YHWH/jesus creationist? If you say faith I might have to vomit green goo on you.

There are some who believe that Genesis really stands for genes-of-isis. The original deity that was widely worshiped before Christianity took solid hold was actually a Goddess by the name of Isis (among other names). She was called the Queen of Heaven, Light Bearer, etc. She was thought to give birth to the universe which makes more sense since she was female and females can actually physically give birth. Above her temple in Sais was the famous inscription: "I, Isis, am all that has been, that is or shall be; no mortal Man hath ever me unveiled. The fruit which I have brought forth is the SUN." In fact, there are many statues and depictions of Isis with her child in a 'Madonna with child' pose. Some think that Isis was the inspiration for the Virgin Mary. Others say Mary Magdalene. One of her symbols was the serpent which, during pre and early Christianity, was considered a positive symbol that represented fertility/resurrection due to the shedding of its skin.

Isis/Ishtar worship was a bear to get rid of for the early Christian leaders because the goddess cult was deeply revered by the pagans (common people) and hard to dismantle. As a result, all female deification and everything associated with it was stamped out and deemed unlawful or evil. As a result, some followers of the cult went underground and still worshiped secretly while keeping the mystic secrets. Allegedly, that is how secret societies such as the Rosicrucians, Freemasons, Knights Templar, etc. came about.

It is no secret that early Hebrew/Jewish men had a disdain for women and viewed them as low status and no more than property. Look at how Peter and Paul reacted against how Jesus treated Mary Magdalene. Jesus was kind to Mary, treated her with respect, and even preached against traditional Jewish customs and bias toward women and slaves. (BTW, something that always bothered me is how Peter and Paul did the equivalent of 'talking back' to Jesus. If you truly believed that Jesus was the Son of God, would you talk back to him or question his judgment? I wouldn't. For some reason, I never hear that brought up or questioned.)

Did you know that at the Council of Macon in 586 that women were declared human by an all male panel by only one vote? One vote! I almost cried when I read that. Check out this slideshow to get a clear picture of how women are really viewed and oppressed by male philosophers and church leaders from antiquity up until the present. I think this is what is wrong with the world today. We aren't balanced. Sometimes, I'm really shocked that the early 'fathers' didn't just come right out and call Satan 'woman'. I don't know what was holding them back since everything associated with women was considered vile.

Christian Feminism Slideshow


[edit on 22-10-2009 by gazerstar]

[edit on 22-10-2009 by gazerstar]

reply to post by Nichiren


1. We can see other galaxies

2. Are you seriously trying to make us believe when your "Big Bang" happened other galaxies were "born" millions and billions of years prior to our own?????

3. Or that particles, mass, energy were distributed unevenly in a vacuum?

(Are you positive you want to use that line of thinking?? It actually makes your position seem greatly more preposterous...)

Originally posted by Nichiren

Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

They are only talking about the nearby part of our little galaxy in which they are able to observe the supernovae. Do you realize how many more galaxies are out there?

P.S. since you brought up other galaxies and I'll assume you believe this Big Bang garbage I'll refer you to the Conservation Of Angular Momentum Law, which states:

"If a system of particles has no external forces acting on it, then its angular momentum with respect to a given point will be constant over time."

In layman's terms...

If your microdot of all the matter in the universe was spinning at an enormous rate of speed and then explodes, (Big Bang), then why are some galaxies spinning clockwise and some spinning counter-clockwise? Space is a vacuum, there is nothing to 'no external forces acting on it'.

Why are 2 maybe 3 of the planets in our solar system spinning counter-clockwise? Why are some moons of Jupiter spinning clockwise and some spinning counter-clockwise?

Good luck with this little known fact about galaxies/planets/moons.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I usually don't spar with minors. It's just unfair and somebody could get hurt LOL. Your grasp of astrophysics is that of a 12-year-old and I won't waste my time, but I give you a hint. Planet spin---> gravitational force.

BTW: The article you linked to makes the following statement and I wonder why a creationist would use it as a source

NGC 4622 resides 111 million light-years away in the direction of the constellation Centaurus.

I thought the universe existed for about 7000 years LOL.

Ciao.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by Nichiren]

reply to post by Nichiren
Wow, you're calling ME a minor and you're attempting to tell us that the speed of light is a constant????

Scientists have managed to slow down light so much that if it were a car on a highway, it could get a ticket for not getting over to the right-hand lane.

The speed of light is normally about 186,000 miles per second, or fast enough to go around the world seven times in the wink of eye.

Scientists succeeded in slowing it down to 38 mph.

ABC News


If scientists can slow down the speed of light it is NOT A CONSTANT.

When you grasp this error you made, (if possible), re-think your absurd question and try again, in the meantime I'll be playing with my Hot Wheels cars in the sandbox...

Something you won't learn in your astrophysics class at the People's Republic of Berkley:

"During the past 300 years, at least 164 separate measurements of the speed of light have been published. Sixteen different measurement techniques were used. Astronomer Barry Setterfield of Australia has studied these measurements, especially their precision and experimental errors.1 His results show that the speed of light has apparently decreased so rapidly that experimental error cannot explain it! In the seven instances where the same scientists remeasured the speed of light with the same equipment years later, a decrease was always reported. The decreases were often several times greater than the reported experimental errors. I have conducted other analyses that weight (or give significance to) each measurement according to its accuracy. Even after considering the wide range of accuracies, it is hard to see how one can claim, with any statistical rigor, that the speed of light has remained constant."

Source

So, uuuummm... it's uuh, ... possible that the speed of light was exponentially greater at the time of creation??? Wow, that is perplexing....