It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Kailassa
"Anyway, based on the list given by madness - do you agree that 'owr stands for:
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars) ?
yes / no?
How could it be, when the same account states the sun, moon and stars were not created at that stage?
If you are saying the light had to come from those celestial bodies, you are denying the words of the bible, and denying the ability to perform miracles.
Can god perform miracles or not?
What a conundrum huh! Since you don't accept that the simple answer to hebrew word 'owr is:
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars) - you're in a bind because it will make your reasoning faulty. Hey that's ok we make mistakes.
So to cover it up you come with:
you are denying the words of the bible, and denying the ability to perform miracles.
I thought you guys don't believe in miracles?
Interesting reasoning huh, if evolutionist mention miracles it's okay, but if we mention miracles - it's a no no. It's not scientific they say!.
So again - Kailassa, is it possible in a tiny winie possibilty that 'owr can mean:
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars). After all it was included in the list that madness provided.
Unless you're doubting the site he provided. That somehow you are correct and everyone else is incorrect - even the linguistic experts?
in theory,everything IS created. after all,we all came from the very same source: the big bang.
atheists are usually rebelling against a strict religious upbringing and are thus too blinkered.
Most Christians understand Genesis is just a myth written by men
What's this "you guys" business? Do you think only one particular type of person can see that evolution is a proven fact? Your use of the word "evolutionist" is pathetic. Are you a gravitationalist for knowing gravity is a proven fact? I don't know anyone else in this thread, except by their posts. And it just happens that the posts of the people you label "evolutionists" are the ones which argue logically, using well researched facts as their basis.
We, (the posters you call evolutionists,) seem to each be at a different place regarding spirituality.
Which is not surprising, because one's awareness of god does not obligate a person to close one's eyes to scientific research.
Someone has really put it over you, in that regard, brainwashing you into the notion that some demonic "god" will make you burn in hell forever if you use your brain and stop denying facts and I feel sorry for you.
If one is logical, one may have personal proof of the existance of god, and have witnessed miracles, but still understand the difference between evidence-based theory and "the god of the gaps" theory.
The importance of miracles in this context is not whether or not I believe in them, as you are not using my words as evidence for your "argument". You are using the words of the bible as the basis for your argument, so the question is, do the writers of the bible believe in miracles?
If the writers of the bible believed in miracles, it's illogical to assume they did not allow for the miraculous in their writings.
So please tell me, yes/no, did the author of Genesis demonstrate, anywhere in his writings, a belief in miracles?
Don't be silly. You're allowed to believe in miracles all you want.
Just don't pretend that it's logical to mix miracles and evolution. If you want to make a science of miracles, you need proof of those miracles, and saying they must have happened because science does not have an explanation is not only illogical, it's also, where this argument is used on creation sites, frequently a lie.
Get enough actual proof of miracles, and I can guarantee even the firmest atheist, if he/she is a scientist, will be interested.
(So again - Kailassa, is it possible in a tiny winie possibilty that 'owr can mean:
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars). After all it was included in the list that madness provided.)
No it isn't possible, because you must interpret words in their context, and the context, in this case, clearly states there was no sun, moon or stars created at this point.
(Unless you're doubting the site he provided. That somehow you are correct and everyone else is incorrect - even the linguistic experts?)
Now you're being silly again.
The site gives meany possible meanings, one being "light".
How am I doubting the site by accepting that is most likely to be the intended meaning in verse 3?
“The emergent science of cosmology does not and cannot deny the existence of God.”
“In the last few years more and more scientists have been struck by what they regard as a string of improbable ‘accidents’ or ‘coincidences’ that are built into the laws of physics to enable the universe to produce the familiar systems we see—galaxies, stars, atoms and, most significant of all, us . . . The most minute change in the relative strengths of gravitational and electromagnetic forces would turn stars like the Sun into blue giants or red dwarfs. All around us, we seem to see evidence that nature got it just right.”
“Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proved that the Universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter and energy into the Universe?”
“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”—God and the Astronomers
“Mars is too cold, Venus is too hot, Earth is just right,”
“At a distance of 93 million miles from the sun, earthly temperatures have supported life. But if our earth had been slung into an orbit only 5 percent closer to the sun, a runaway greenhouse effect would have turned the planet into something like Venus—a cloud-shrouded planet with temperatures close to 900° F.
“If, on the other hand, we had been only 1 percent farther from the sun when the earth came into being, runaway glaciation would have enveloped the earth, and 1.7 billion years ago our planet would have become a barren desert similar to Mars.”—April 24, 1979.
Mercury is too close to the sun and too hot. Any water that might have been there (and any other volatile chemicals) would, long ago, have evaporated into space.
Venus also is too close to the sun to have any surface water. The climate there is classified as a “run-away greenhouse effect.” While Venus probably has torrential rains from its heavy cloud cover, the high heat almost immediately evaporates any surface water.
Mars, on the other hand, is too far away from the sun, and so is too cold. Any water and carbon dioxide present on the planet are frozen solid in the “ice” cap (a tiny bit of CO2 thaws out and provides a thin atmosphere over portions of the planet during the Martian summer. Also, the planet is too small to hold very much atmosphere, and there is not enough of a greenhouse effect to keep the planet warm. Thus, there is essentially no atmosphere left.
Once again, conditions happen to be just right here on planet Earth. We are just the right distance from the sun! On Earth, the heat and the size are such that the water is neither all frozen nor all vaporized.
How can you believe a book that claims to know about creation (like pretty much every religious text on earth) when in the same book you have content like this:
Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."
So now you see the dilema. If you accept the bible as the word of god and believe the genesis account to be correct, you also agree with this Exodus verse. Because after all, it is the word of god. Why would he speak the truth about creation and lie about killing slaves, right? I wonder how you're gonna twist this one to make it "fit"..
If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. Exodus 21:2-6
Then why not write "though shalt not have slaves"? I doubt the slaves would be all that excited about "only" having to serve 7 years as a slave. And whether a slave owner intended to kill a slave or not doesn't make a difference for the dead slave, no?
So it's true, if you're a slave, god think it's ok for you to leave after only 7 years of slavery. Of course your master has the right to hold your entire family hostage, but you have the right to stay and remain a slave forever if you don't like that.
By the way, what's also hilarious is that a lot of Christians talk about the sanctity of marriage...when the bible specifically says it's ok to have concubines!!
Rape in the Bible
You ask and you shall receive in life.
Polygamy in the Bible
I'm a polygamist and proud!
Sexual slavery, or being sold to be a wife, was common in the ancient world. While no sanction was made in the Old Testament for sexual activity outside marriage, the taking of concubines as secondary wives was allowed
DINAH’S RAPE AND REVENGE — 33:18 — 34 Jacob once settled in the city of Shechem in Canaan, where a young man named Shechem raped his daughter Dinah. Shechem wanted to marry Dinah; so his father, Hamor, offered to buy her as a wife for his son. The price, according to Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, was for each male in Shechem to be circumcised. Hamor was delighted to have Jacob’s family unite with his family, so he and all the men in Shechem agreed to circumcise themselves. Simeon and Levi had no intention of giving up their sister to the man who had raped her; they were angry for revenge. While the men of Shechem were still in pain from the circumcision, Simeon and Levi sneaked into the city with their swords and killed all the males including Hamor and Shechem. Jacob’s other sons followed behind and stole anything of value in the city and of the women and children they “captured and made their prey.” Jacob was not angry with his sons for their deceit and their treachery. Rather he was disturbed that other Canaanites might take revenge on him. The always helpful God told Jacob to leave the area. “As they journeyed, a terror from God fell upon the cities all around them, so that no one pursued them.”
Since many characters in the Bible practiced marriage relations with many women God didn't care. You also have the rape of Dinah's.