It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

page: 31
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in


posted on May, 10 2011 @ 04:34 PM
reply to post by Rustami

Originally posted by Rustami

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Rustami're saying that my statement is ignorant...and then you're quoting the Bible at me....

I'm sorry, but why should I accept the Bible as true? Where is the evidence to support its claims?

your saying the bible-scriptures/my testimony/apostles/christians/God/Jesus/John/Abraham/Paul etc. etc. is ignorant than writing letters combined to make words that mean and sound like something...

Well, it's ignorant in places. Like some of Paul's writings, the observations of the natural world, a few statements on belief without evidence, etc. And yes, I'm using language, shocking!

I'm sorry but why should I accept a mortal who does not control his birth or death nor making one hair white or black

Well...I do happen to exist and I can verify any of the statements I make.

as opposed to a real living invisible eternal being as witnessed by many as being raised from the dead,

And yet none of them bothered to write it down at the time.

throughout the ages and is recorded in the scriptures as such- which match verbatum to what I've seen and heard before knowing any?[

The 'scripture' is not a recording of first hand accounts. It's third hand writings separated from the events by decades. There are no independent verifications of any of the Bible events.

I asked you why should I accept the Bible? Where is your answer?

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by Rustami

yeah.. now your getting somewhere, so who wrote the scriptures?


posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:02 PM
reply to post by Rustami

Hi Rustami -

What fantasy is this? Are we Joan of Arc? Are we hearing 'Voices' ?

The human mind picks up all sorts of stray nonsense - being a kind of biological receiver of electromagnetic energy - some people claim to be able to pick up radio station signals (albeit faintly) even when 'tuned' to a different station :

In your case, I'm not sure exactly what 'English speaking voices' you thought you were hearing in your head but if you really felt you 'heard' the voice of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (c. BCE 12 to 36CE), you should know that he spoke a northern Galilean 1st century Aramaic dialect, and not modern English.

Have you had that 'brain static' checked out lately ?

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:07 PM
reply to post by Sigismundus

Hey...hey! He might have been speaking in ancient trade Greek for all you know! I mean, it wouldn't have been uncommon for a man from Galilee to know a bit of the trade language of the eastern portions of the Roman empire. Especially if he was truly a tekton.

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:37 PM

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Rustami

Now if some of us don't believe them and they are in fact true then I would think that the time will come when we shall stand corrected. Until that time

alright fair enough and an intelligent reasonable response at that! nothing further to say

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice-John5

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:02 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:08 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:14 PM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Hi Madness -

Well, of course...we weren't there with a Video camera capturing his every syllable, but to judge from one of his main disciples need for an interpreter ( i.e. a Koine Greek translator -= Shimeon bar Jonah, haKephah = Simon Peter - who travelled with 'John Mark' as interpreter on his Missionary Tours to Greek speaking places like Antioch etc.) we can pretty much assume that R. Yehoshua did not have any real need to speak the lingo of the Greek goyim' whom he apparently deliberately avoided in his own Missionary 'Kingdom of Heaven' announcement work.

If you read the text of the Greek canonical gospel 'Accoding to Matthew' in chapter 15, you can see a little of what I am talking about : the Good Rebbe seems to have had his own personal 'mission-focus' ONLY to the Lost Sheep of the Elect of the House of Yisro'el, see Matt chapter 15:24 -

'The Bar Enasha was sent ONLY (Gk. Eutheos) to the Elect of the Lost Sheep of the House of Yisr'oel' (andd later : 'since when is it right to take the Children's Bread out of their Mouths and throw it away to the Dogs under the Table?'

Where the specfic Hebraio-Aramaic term 'dogs' was a common pejorative epithet for 'unclean gentiles' (e.g. 'ritually unclean gentile dogs and idolators' which we find scattered in routine expressions (especially the priestly 'holiness' class) among 1st century Jews - see the term as it appears in so many places among the Dead Sea Scroll material (inclding the 4Q-MMT, the Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation Document) - and of course we know that many of the Scrolls were still being copied (they ceased being copied out during the 1st Failed Jewish Revolt beginning in AD 66 - in June of AD 68 they were sealed up in caves as 'time casules' for modern scholars to hear what language was actually being used when the Good Rebbe wa still alive in palestine ! ) at any rate the phrase was certainly in current usage -

He also might have had to use an interpreter in his dealings with Pilate at the Trial Hearing (see the textual mess of the mangled hand transmitted copies of the 4th Canonical Greek Gospel of 'John' in chapter 18 : specifically verse 33 -

"Then Pilate re-entered the Judgement Hall and said to [Iesous] So you are the King of the Judaeans, are you?

And Iesous answered him saying, Are you saying this yourself, [or is your Interpreter putting these words into your mouth[ ? 35 Then Pilate said, Do I look like a native Judaean? The Religious Authorites of your own people have hand you over to me for trial ! So..tell me, what have you done, exactly? "

We also note some of his more 'racist-zionist' commands to his own disciples 'never to enter'into any of the towns of the goyim' (i.e. non-Jews) when on their Kingdom Announcement Tours in Palestine - which is stated in many places (see the 'Gospel' of 'Matthew' 10:5 or passages like those found in 'Luke' 6:14 etc. in the canonical gospels (historically suspect though they sometimes are ! ) all of which taken together seem to suggest that speaking Koine Greek to the goyim was not on his priority list of languages to be learned - however we weren't there, so we'll of course never know for sure.

But his knowledge of 21st century American English Slang is right out !

edit on 10-5-2011 by Sigismundus because: Stuttering Keyboards are a Nuisance !

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:18 PM
reply to post by edmc^2

You’re pathetic... my username isn’t meant to ridicule anyone, if the bible is true then I’m no better than Judas. My thoughts, my actions and my words are often not worthy of a person who follows Jesus. I know that I betray Christ every day .

Are your thoughts, actions and words so pure and righteous that Jesus would be so proud of you?

Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)

Oh, the bible tells me that I was put on this planet to be dominated by man... Is that a fact, should I oblige?

See you around, I’m done.

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:24 PM
reply to post by JudasIscariot

I guess I owe you an apology then if your intention was not to ridicule. That is why I asked the question not an accusation to clear things up.

But a friendly advice – make sure to explain first why the username and the avatar so that others will not misunderstand your intention.

Besides, of all the sinners why pick Judas Iscariot? We are all sinners but to take after Judas Iscariot's name seems very unusual.

As for God's mercy:

“My little children, I am writing YOU these things that YOU may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one. 2 And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world’s. 3 And by this we have the knowledge that we have come to know him, namely, if we continue observing his commandments. 4 He that says: “I have come to know him,” and yet is not observing his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in this [person]. 5 But whoever does observe his word, truthfully in this [person] the love of God has been made perfect. By this we have the knowledge that we are in union with him. 6 He that says he remains in union with him is under obligation himself also to go on walking just as that one walked.” (1 John 2:1-6)


posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Sigismundus
reply to post by edmc^2

Hi edmc -

Cool - so you DO understand my posts - I wasn't sure you did.

So...according to the logic / understanding of the term ADAM to mean MALE AND FEMALE in BOTH of the Creation Myths of the Jews in Genesis, the ADAM in the 2nd Creation Myth (Gen 2:4b - 4:25) is BOTH male and Female too (i.e. 'mankind') i.e. the term is used EXACTLY the SAME WAY in BOTH myths - i.e. ADAM in Myth # 2 (who was not 'made' but 'formed from mud') was somehow able to reproduce and have a 'helpmate' with the SAME female half that is described in the 1st Creation Myth in Genesis (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a, cont;d 5:1ff ) when it is stated in the paleoHeb of the mangled texts

'In the Day in which THEY were created, ELOHIM (not Yhwh-elohim) made them MALE & FEMALE : and he called THEIR name ADAM, and blessed them'

which means, according to your warped logic, that even, BEFORE the character of the female ('eve') - 'HA VVAH' was ever in existence BEFORE, she had already been 'formed' by YHWH-ELOHIM from ADAM's rib AFTER the animals were 'formed' from mud?

Kind of makes the Ha vah ('Eve') component in Myth #2 redundant doesn't it?

Can't you see that the ORDER OF CREATION (inlcuding ADAM) in both Creation Myth #1 (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a - Adam created last) and in Creation Myth #2 (Gen 2:4b - 4:25 - Adam formed FIRST) is completely different?

What text are YOU reading ??!!

OK - done with my research.

You asked:

What text am I reading?

The texts you’ve mentioned, namely:

1) Gen 1:1 to 2:4a - the texts you refer to as “Creation Myth #1” (where you claim “Adam created last”)

2) Gen 2:4b - 4:25 - the texts you refer to as “Creation Myth #2” (where you claim “Adam formed FIRST”)

Now here’s my take:

Since we agree that the word “ADAM” have several meanings (ie: the man Adam, Human, Man, MANKIND) then I can proceed with the unraveling of your purported ‘contradictions’.

You said:

the 1st Creation Myth in Genesis (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a, cont;d 5:1ff )

After reading and analyzing the what you call “the 1st Creation Myth in Genesis”:

The sequence of Creation Events according to the Bible goes this way (extracted from my past post)::

1) Gen 1:1 – “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

(Gen 1:1) Here the Heavens (galaxies), planets, earth, sun moon stars already existed. It's a statement of the “beginning” of creation – these can be billions and billions of years. In fact according to evidence the universe is somewhere around 14byo and the earth somewhere around 4byo. No specific time line given. No contradiction.

2) Genesis 1:2 - “Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.”

(Gen 1:2) Here God now focuses his attention to the formless planet - called earth, enveloped in “watery deep”.

Next verses deal with the preparation of the formless planet earth for habitation.

(Sequence of Creative Events)

Day No. ------- Creative Works --------------------------------------Texts

1 ------ Light; division between day and night --------------------- Gen 1:3-5

2 ------ Expanse, a division between waters
beneath the expanse and waters above it -------------------------- Gen 1:6-8

3 ------ Dry land; vegetation ----------------------------------------- Gen 1:9-13

4 ------ Heavenly luminaries become discernible from earth ----- Gen 1:14-19

5 ------ Aquatic souls and flying creatures ------------------------- Gen 1:20-23

6 ------ Land animals; man ------------------------------------------- Gen 1:24-31

7 ------Upon completion of his creative works, God rested------- Gen 2:1-3

Conclusion: there’s no contradiction found.

Now at Gen 2:4a it says:

“4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, . . .” (Genesis 2:4)

Question is:

Are the “heavens” mentioned in Gen 2:4a the same “heavens” mentioned in Gen 1:1?

Again it’s in the context of the story line and the event and how the word was used.

Just like the word “ADAM” let’s look at the word “heavens”

Gen 2:4 (ASV):

“These are the generations of the heavens* and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God (YHWH Elohim - יהוה Yĕhovah) made earth and heaven.”

Notice again Strong’s numbers about the different usage of the word “heavens”

Lexicon / Concordance for Genesis 2:4

אֵלֶּה תֹולְדֹות הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּֽרְאָם בְּיֹום עֲשֹׂות יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָֽיִם׃

English (NASB)  
Root Form (Hebrew)
אלה 'el-leh

is the account

תולדות towlĕdah

of the heavens

שמים shamayim

and the earth

ארץ 'erets

when they were created,

ברא bara'

in the day

יום yowm

that the LORD

יהוה Yĕhovah

אלהים 'elohiym

עשה `asah

ארץ 'erets

and heaven.

שמים shamayim

Focusing on the word שמים shamayim (heaven)

Strong's H8064 - shamayim
shä·mah'·yim (Key)

1) heaven, heavens, sky
a) visible heavens, sky
1) as abode of the stars
2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
b) Heaven (as the abode of God)

So here just like the word “Adam” have different usage, just like the as the word “DAY” have different usage – depending on the CONTEXT, the word “heaven” also have different meaning.

Thus from this, we can see and understand that what is being described by the Bible writer at Gen 2:4a IS not the same “heavens” as in Gen 1:1 (Universe).

BUT: 1) heaven, heavens, sky a) visible heavens, sky. That is “expanse/firmament” as recorded in Genesis 1:8.

“And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.” – Gen 1:8 (ASV)

Note again from the Masoretic text:

וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָֽרָקִיעַ שָׁמָיִם וַֽיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹקֶר יֹום שֵׁנִֽי׃ פ

English (NASB)  
Root Form (Hebrew)
אלהים 'elohiym

קרא qara'

the expanse

רקיע raqiya`

שמים shamayim

And there was evening

ערב `ereb

and there was morning,

בקר boqer

a second

שני sheniy

יום yowm

Noticed the Hebrew word “רקיע raqiya` `” was also called “שמים shamayim”.

Comparing it with Genesis 1:1 (ASV)

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Lexicon / Concordance for Genesis 1:1
בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

English (NASB)  
Root Form (Hebrew)
In the beginning

ראשית re’shiyth

אלהים ‘elohiym

ברא bara’

the heavens

שמים shamayim

and the earth.

ארץ ‘erets

In short the correct interpretation or understanding of the word “heavens” at Gen 1:1 is the visible UNIVERSE.

Again per Strong’s numbers: שמים shamayim

1) as abode of the stars
2) as the visible universe, …, etc

ONLY by looking at it this way can one arrive at the correct meaning and reading of Gen 2:4b - 4:25.

That is, within the context of the chapters / verses and by using the correct meaning of the word שמים shamayim (the heavens).

Of course IF one IS to read it YOUR WAY (with so many conflicting statements and opinions from your “experts”) then he/she will arrive at the erroneous conclusion / understanding. That is:

Creation Myth #2 (Gen 2:4b - 4:25 - Adam formed FIRST) is completely different

IMJO It’s the same as reading a map – if one will not consider the context of the location - then one will never arrive at the correct destination. The context are the “four corners / extremities of the earth” that is: N, S, E & W.

So the correct CONTEXT / reading / understanding of Gen 2:4b – 4:26 are the following:

In narrative way:

Gen 2:4b – 4:26 shows that the focus of the story line is now on man's (Adam and Eve’s, their offspring) existence / appearance / affairs on earth under the heavens (1/a - sky). It explains accurately how ‘the first man’ was formed from the “dust of the ground” followed by ‘the woman’. It tells of how they were given a good start – living in paradise called the Garden of Eden. Then it tells that because of disobedience they lost the chance / privilege to live happily in that Paradisaic location/habitat forever. It tells the reason why they did not listen to their Creator but instead listened to a lie from an angelic creature that turned bad. By a cunning way (ventriloquism), Satan used a snake to deceive Eve and Adam followed suit. And that disobedience then brought in imperfection, sin and death. It also explains because of tier sin against God (Elohim) they started to grow old get sick and eventually died. The narrative also tells us that life outside the Garden of Eden was a tough one for now they have to grow their own food. Outside the garden Adam and Eve bore sinful imperfect children just like them and one this offspring named Cain murdered his brother Abel due to jealousy. From there mankind flourished – speaking one language living in a dying imperfect sinful state.

The rest as they say is history and we’re part of that living history.

As you can see there’s no contradiction whatsoever. All you need to know is where story line starts and where it ends and of course you need to consider also the contents, sequence of events as well as the context of the story line.

I hope this is crystal clear enuff.

As for the Creation of the man Adam (Gen 2:4b – 4:26):

The Scriptures say that:

“7 And Jehovah God (YHWH Elohim - יהוה Yĕhovah) proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul. 8 Further, Jehovah God (YHWH Elohim - יהוה Yĕhovah) planted a garden in E′den, toward the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.” (Genesis 2:7-9)

Then after some time passed:

“18 And Jehovah God (YHWH Elohim - יהוה Yĕhovah) went on to say: “It is not good for the man to continue by himself. I am going to make a helper for him, as a complement of him.. . .” (Genesis 2:18)

“. . .. 21 Hence Jehovah God (YHWH Elohim - יהוה Yĕhovah).had a deep sleep fall upon the man and, while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its place. 22 And Jehovah God (YHWH Elohim - יהוה Yĕhovah) proceeded to build the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman and to bring her to the man. 23 Then the man said: “This is at last bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh. This one will be called Woman, Because from man this one was taken.”” (Genesis 2:20-23)

So obviously the man Adam was Created FIRST then after some time later after naming newly created animals the Woman (Eve) was finally created (formed) from man.

Again no contradiction found.

Man – ish (derived from ish.shah)
Woman – ish.shah (lit. a man with a womb)

As for Genesis 5:1-2:

The Scriptures say:

“5 This is the book of Adam’s history. In the day of God’s creating Adam he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them. After that he blessed them and called their name Man in the day of their being created.” (Genesis 5:1-2)

From this verse (V1) we can logically conclude that Moses was using “the book of Adam’s history" (possibly Adam himself wrote this book) to include additional details of “MANS” Creation – both MALE and FEMALE and the succeeding generations down to Noah.

So again calling or referring to them as “ADAM” or “MAN” is correct for both are “MANKIND” not the animal kind.

To summarize:

The texts you’ve mentioned, namely:

1) Gen 1:1 to 2:4a - the texts you refer to as “Creation Myth #1” (where you claim “Adam created last)

IS not a CREATION MYTH and that “ADAM” or “MAN” (Mankind – male and female) was CREATED LAST from ALL of God’s creations.


“. . .And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.” 27 And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 Further, God blessed them and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.”” (Genesis 1:26-28)

“31 After that God saw everything he had made and, look! [it was] very good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Genesis 1:31)

“2 Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion. 2 And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made. 3 And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making.” (Genesis 2:1-3)

End of physical / material creation.

2) Gen 2:4b - 4:25 - the texts you refer to as “Creation Myth #2” (where you claim “Adam formed FIRST”)

IS not a CREATION MYTH and that the man “ADAM” (the first HUMAN) was CREATED FIRST then the WOMAN (Eve).


“7 And Jehovah God (YHWH Elohim - יהוה Yĕhovah) proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7)

“. . .And Jehovah God (YHWH Elohim - יהוה Yĕhovah) went on to say: “It is not good for the man to continue by himself. I am going to make a helper for him as a complement of him.”” (Genesis 2:18)

“. . .Hence Jehovah God (YHWH Elohim - יהוה Yĕhovah) had a deep sleep fall upon the man and, while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its place. 22 And Jehovah God (YHWH Elohim - יהוה Yĕhovah) proceeded to build the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman and to bring her to the man.” (Genesis 2:21-22)

So Adam (the first human) was created FIRST then eventually after some time the woman was created (from man)

As for your claim that the Genesis Creation accounts are “MYTHS” notice Jesus Christ himself:

“And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” 4 In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:3-5)

If it’s as you say a “MYTH” then by Jesus quoting Genesis 2:24 to opposers of God (Elohim), it would mean nothing. He will be ridiculed by enemies of Jehovah God (YHWH Elohim - יהוה Yĕhovah).

Note also the beloved physician Luke:

“. . .I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent The·oph′i·lus, 4 that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.” (Luke 1:3-4)

“. . .Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced [his work], was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, [son] of He′li, 24 [son] of Mat′that, [son] of Le′vi, [son] of Mel′chi, [son] of Jan′na·i, [son] of Joseph, 25 [son] of Mat·ta·thi′as,. . .” (Luke 3:23-25)

“37 [son] of Me·thu′se·lah, [son] of E′noch, [son] of Ja′red, [son] of Ma·ha′la·le·el, [son] of Ca·i′nan, 38 [son] of E′nosh, [son] of Seth, [son] of Adam, [son] of God.” (Luke 3:37-38)

Why would Dr. Luke include these “accurate genealogy” of Jesus if ADAM was a “mythical person”?

There’s more but these should be more than enuff to prove my point.

As you can see there are NO contradictions if one considers the context and the correct sequence of events and the correct meaning / usage of words.

Of course if one is intent on the proving that the Bible is a “myth” or contradictory – I guess you’re way of doing it is the way. But it will only prove one thing for sure! Those who go this route will ONLY SHOW to all that he / she is clearly confused and has no idea what the Bible is all about.

So there you go – NOT a MYTH and NO CONTRADICTIONS – Clear daylight!

Of course you can keep believing your as you put it “Clear as mud” explanation nad understanding but just to let you know – it will only lead you to more and further confusion. In other words believing on a lie will get one nowhere. That is MJO.

So which one do you think IS the CORRECT understanding and reading of the Genesis Accounts?

My as you put it “shockingly jejune” understanding or your as you put it “Clear as mud” explanation?

Since I’m correct on the proper usage of the word “ADAM”, I'm also sure that I'm correct on the proper usage of the word “heavens”.

ATS – what say you?


Suplemental info: Different usage of the word “DAY”

[center]Lexicon Results
Strong's H3117 - yowm
yōm (Key)

Part of Speech
masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From an unused root meaning to be hot
TWOT Reference

Outline of Biblical Usage [/center]
1) day, time, year
a) day (as opposed to night)
b) day (24 hour period)
1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
2) as a division of time
a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)
e) year
f) temporal references
1) today
2) yesterday
3) tomorrow
noun \ˈdā\
Definition of DAY
a : the time of light between one night and the next b : daylight 1 c : daytime
: the period of rotation of a planet (as earth) or a moon on its axis
: the mean solar day of 24 hours beginning at mean midnight
: a specified day or date
: a specified time or period : age

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:53 PM
And people are still using the bible as if it were objective evidence

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:24 AM

Originally posted by MrXYZ
objective evidence
You keep using this word, I don't think it means what he thinks it means

Certainly if he did, he wouldn't be posting his scriptural dirges as evidence for anything, much less something

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:37 PM
reply to post by edmc^2

Hi edmc -

You seem to have a big problem looking at two things and distinguishing between them - why is that, do you think?

Read (again !) the two Creation Myths again (in an English translation if that is all you can read, since you obviously cannot handle the unpointed paleoHeb of even the mangled proto-Masoretic text) found in Gen 1:1 to 2:4a and Gen 2:4b to 4:25.

You can see that there is a number of differences that you are overlooking between them - perhaps you are looking at them with the proverbial 'rosy coloured glasses' that apologietic 'Christians' and 'Jews' view their own texts - simply because they do not wish to see what they do not wish to see...

As for 'historical-sccientific accuracy of Biblical creation' you must be able to see that the writer of the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) seems to think that it was perfectly possible the Earth was created PRIOR to the 'creation' of the SUN, MOON and the STARS - (a physical impossibility !) and that the earth without a SUN, or without having a place in a Galaxy of Stars etc. was someehow able to sustain (according to his own pre-Scientific Weltanschauung, which is more primitive than ours to-day) not only grass & herbs but ALSO 'trees bearing fruit, with the seeds inside them' - all created and brought into existence long PRIOR to the creation of any SUN, the MOON and the STARS - thereby displaying a total ignorance of the concept of Photosynthesis.

In other words, anyone trying to take these Creation Myths literally in a modern cosmological scientific way is deluding himself into thinking he is reading 'science' when he is in fact reading paleoHebrew Liturgical Poetic Myth which had a specific 'cultic-temple' function in its recitation by priests at the Spring New Year Festival in Palestine - they were not giving Science Lessons to kiddies gathered around the Campfire when they compiled these myths !

It seems (if only to understand the texts that are in front of you that you plainly cannot read !) you will have to take a beginners' Hebrew class - so you can glean not only the grammatical differences in style of utterance and vocabulary etc. between the two, but also the plays on words and the poetical forms being employed (and the myths of Genesis are poetical- liturgical in form, not 'hard Science') - because - so far at least, you do not show any evidence whatsoever of being able to think critically or even the ability to discern the TWO writers at work working with very different mythological material.

We'll leave the weird 'genealogy' of the 3rd Canonical Greek Gospel ('according to Luke', whoever he was, and addressed to 'his excellency Theophilos' whoever he was) out of the discussion for now.

But before we leave the topic altogether, you did know, didn't you, that the 3rd Gospel's Genealogy VASTLY DIFFERS from the 1st canonical Greek Gospel ('according to Matthew' whoever he was) in a number of places ('Matthew' leaves out most of the kings of Judah from c. BCE 690 to BCE 630 BCE so he can have nice neat divisions of '14 generations' between each of three sections - which just goes to show you how 'midrashic' the Gospels are in fact, and how they all play so 'fast and loose with the facts of history..' - for example, when one tries to find out who exactly was R. Yehoshua bar Yosef's grandfather, we have the 3rd Gospel calling him HELI and the 1st Gospel calling his grandfather 'Yakkov' (i.e. Jacob)

"Matthew's" fake Genealogy [use of take 14- generations-groupings from the Gematria D-V-D = 14)

David Solomon Rehoboam Abijah Asa Jehoshaphat Joram Uzziah Jotham Ahaz Hezekiah
Manasseh Amon Josiah Jeconiah Shealtiel Zerubbabel Abiud Eliakim Azor Zadok Achim
Eliud Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph Iesous

"Luke 's" [much longer !] genealogy (with 'Joseph's father HELI not YAKKOV]

David Nathan Mattathah Menan Melea Eliakim Jonan Joseph Judah Simeon Levi Matthat
Jorim Eliezer Hosea Ur Elmodam Cosam Addi Melchi Neri Shealtiel Zerubbabel Rhesa
Johannan Judah Joseph Shemei Mattathiah Maath Naggai Esli Nahum Amos Mattathiah
Joseph Janna Melchi Levi Matthat Heli Joseph Iesous

BOTH Genealogies of 'Iesous' in the Greek Canonical Gospels ('Matthew' v. 'Luke' ) cannot be correct - they contradict each other - and the fact that the 3rd Gospel tries to tie the ancestors of David (whose grand-mother was Ruth, a Moabitess - whose own 'Moabite' blood dis-enabled any of her descendents from being called 'benei Yisro'el' i.e. Israelites, let alone kings of them...) back to a mythological Adam is in keeping with other pagan cultures whose kings traced their own ancestors back to the gods - e .g. the Sumerians, Babylonians, Akkadians, Assyrians etal.) - it doesn't make it true for the Babyolonians any more for the writer of the 3rd gospel (who was making a theological point not an historical one - that R. Yehoshua had 'gentile' ancestors, not just 'Daviddic' ones...

Read these two contradictory genealogies in the canonical Greek gospels again very closely - and you will see they do not match at all - ergo they cannot BOTH be considered 'accurate' at all - but I imagine you will have problems even there since you do not see what you do not wish to see...

Why is that, do you think?

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:57 PM
reply to post by Sigismundus

OK- since I’ve already answered and debunked the creation myth you've posted I don't want to repeat myself again. So I'll just reply to this another so called contradiction you're now claiming.

That is:

BOTH Genealogies of 'Iesous' in the Greek Canonical Gospels ('Matthew' v. 'Luke' ) cannot be correct - they contradict each other.”

because as you said:

"Matthew's" fake Genealogy [use of take 14- generations-groupings from the Gematria D-V-D = 14)

and that:

"Luke 's" [much longer !] genealogy (with 'Joseph's father HELI not YAKKOV]

The simple explanation is that:

The difference in almost all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s can be quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (see Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7)

Clearly Luke follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.

Evidently also both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Then Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (see Mt 1:16)

Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (see Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—see Lu 3:23.

SO at 'Nathan', you can see that Luke begins listing the genealogy through Jesus’ maternal line, while Matthew continues with the paternal line.

Also, to prove Jesus' genealogy it was not necessary to name every link in the line of descent.
The important thing is to establish that Jesus was a descendant of David - therefore have the legal right to inherit the throne of David which was given to him by God (Elohim).

The fact that the (scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees) enemies of Jesus or the apostles did not question the validity of these public records further confirms the accuracy of the genealogy list provided by Luke and Matthew.

If either Matthew’s or Luke’s genealogy of Jesus had been in error like you claim, this will give an opportunity for these opponents to prove it then and there! For until 70 C.E. they evidently had ready access to the public genealogical registers and the Scriptures.

Another point to consider. Even if there was an omission in these tables, it did not detract from what these Gospel writers intended and indeed accomplished, namely, presenting legally and publicly recognized proof of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah.

SO by simple but accurate analysis, these so called genealogical contradictions are not contradictions at all but variations seen from different perspective.


posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:08 PM

So in addition to the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE provided in the OP, here's some more:

According to Romans 1:20:

“For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;”

What qualities are these that we can clearly see from the world’s creation onward?

Consider please the following evidence and ask yourself these simple honest questions:

IF the COPY requires an INTELLIGENT (teams of) copier, does the SOURCE of the COPY/COPIES require an INTELLIGENT Designer and Maker?

You can also ask - Who Did it first?

What does the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE show?

(These are just a few of what we've been copying - A-Z– now know as Bionics or Biomemetics or Biomimicry)


Copied from how termites cool their “house”.


Copied from flight patterns and WINGS of Birds.


Copied from glycerol produced by microscopic plants, insects that survive in temperatures of 4 degrees below zero Fahrenheit and trees that survive temperatures of 40 degrees below zero Fahrenheit.


People strap tanks of air to their backs and remain under water for up to an hour. Certain water beetles do it more simply and stay under longer. They grab a bubble of air and submerge. The bubble serves as a lung. It takes carbon dioxide from the beetle and diffuses it into the water, and takes oxygen dissolved in the water for the beetle to use.


Long before people used sundials, clocks in living organisms were keeping accurate time.

Consider the following “nature clocks”:


They come to the surface of wet beach sand. When the tide comes in the diatoms go down into the sand again. Yet in sand in the laboratory, without any tidal ebb and flow, their clocks still make them come up and go down in time with the tides.

Fiddler crabs:

They turn a darker color and come out during low tide, turn pale and retreat to their burrows during high tide. In the laboratory away from the ocean, they still keep time with the changing tide, turning dark and light as the tide ebbs and flows.

Birds are widely know as good navigators using the sun and stars. Which these heavenly luminaries change position as time passes, migratory birds adjust their internal clocks or “compass” to compensate for these changes. (see Jeremiah 8:7)

Compass correction
...One possible cue is polarized sunlight - light that has waves along a specific plane perpendicular to the light's forward direction. A recent study found that savannah sparrows "recalibrate" their compasses by reference to polarized light at dawn and dusk (see #1 in the bibliography). The authors suggested that many migrating birds may correct their bearings with this method.


(see quote above)

Bacteria contain strings of magnetite particles just the right size to make a compass. These guide them to their preferred environments. Magnetite has been found in many other organisms —birds, bees, butterflies, dolphins, mollusks and others. Experiments indicate that homing pigeons can return home by sensing the earth’s magnetic field. It is now generally accepted that one of the ways migrating birds find their way is by the magnetic compasses in their heads.


Men build huge factories to remove salt from seawater.

But do you know that the mangrove trees have roots that suck up seawater, but filter it through membranes that remove the salt. In fact one species of mangrove called the Avicennia use glands on the underside of its leaves, gets rid of the excess salt.

Also sea birds, such as gulls, pelicans, cormorants, albatross and petrels, drink seawater and by means of glands in their heads remove the excess salt that gets into their blood. Also penguins, sea turtles and sea iguanas drink salt water, removing the excess salt.


Many animals use jet-propulsion and have been for millenniums. Both the octopus and the squid excel in this. They suck water into a special chamber and then, with powerful muscles, expel it, shooting themselves forward. Also using jet propulsion: the chambered nautilus, scallops, jellyfish, dragonfly larvae and even some oceanic plankton.

Here are some more objective evidence (of intelligence in design) – a quick google search will show how these are made in NATURE and by man.


So if man-made products derived from NATURE through Bionics or Biomemetics or Biomimicry who PUT the Intelligence in nature?

Blind chance, unguided process or an Intelligent Designer – Creator?

Of course since evolutionists and atheists and skeptics don't see the obvious and logical evidence present in nature then it's to be expected that they will question and discard the above as objective evidence.

But to the humble the obvious and logical answer is the latter for the scripture says:

“For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;”



There are many publications out there that you can readily use to research the above.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:29 PM
reply to post by edmc^2

Still not on the same page as to the defeinition of objective proof. The OP does not provide objective proof although you keep saying it does. All the things in your last post are just more correlation. You take something that is objective, like observations of things that exist in nature and then correlate them to scripture which is not objective and expect us to accept that as objective fact. I don't know about anyone else but I do not.

All that COPIER and Designer thing doesn't do anything but help you convince youself.

Also wanted to add that you have not debunked anything put up by Sigismundus.
edit on 14-5-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by edmc^2

Hi edmc -

What you just posted back does not make any sense - either to me or to any rational, educated person.

First, you absolutely have NOT - in any way debunked the widely accepted modern higher-academic observation that there exists TWO contradictory Creation Myths of the Jews in the Hebrew Torah written in two very, very different styles of PaleoHebrew each showing a diffferent Weltanschauung from one another (compare, again, the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews in Gen 1:1 to 2:4a with the 2nd Myth of Creatioin Gen 2:4b to 4:25 very very very carefully line for line, letter for letter, idea for idea, and item for item, and you will see what I mean if you have not been able to yet - the 'order of creation' is completely diffferent for one thing with ADAM being created LAST in the 1st Creation Myth and ADAM being created FIRST in the 2nd Creation Myth..try reading them very closely again, and then take a Hebrew class so you can actually read the text in the original - reading a translation into modern English is a little like reading Shakespeare in Swahili - it is not the same literary experience at all....)

No serious modern academic study of the Hebrew Bible would ever try to-day and make a claim that the two Creation Myths in Genesis do not contradict each other in several details - and no serious academic astronomer or cosmologist to-day would ever take the poetical unscientific nonsense containted in these two paleoHebrew Creation Myths as actual scientific fact for a moment - unless of cource they want to be laughed out of the classroom by their students who have come to them to learn science - and not liturgical 'myth-making.'

'Trees bearing fruit wiith the Seed inside them' certainly could not have scientifically' (i.e. in 'real life') sprung into magical existence BEFORE any of the known Galxzies came into being - i.e. the SUN, MOON or the STARs -

It....just...did....not....happen... that ....way.

The whole weird focus on 'fruit-trees' in the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews in Genesis - clearly being out of 'scientific order' - may well have to do with the liturgical cultic fact that Jews (as any Rabbi will tell you) still have a separate 'New Year for Trees' - and in ancient times, this Tree New Year had its very own liturgy within a separate cult-celebration - and this might be a remnant of that ancient Tree Creation Liturgy that has come down to us (albeit textually mangled, with some serious textual issues in places) - the cultic nature of the language of the 1st Creation Myth has been known for centuries with its chant-like refrains ('and ELOHIM saw that it was good...')

But that does not automatically make it a fact that just because the anonymous writer of the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews in Genesis (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) claims that 'Trees bearing Fruit holding their Seeds Inside Them' were magically created BEFORE the Stars or the Sun or the Moon, that it is scientifically true at all.

Oh, and by the way, there is no Dome over a Watery Chaos either. Sorry to burst your bubble or pop your balloon since you seem to like 'magical' thinking...

Just because the ancient Egyptians, and Assyrians and Babylonians and Canaanites etc. may have (like the pre-literate Israelites) copied each other in this regard in their own Creation Myths does not make it 'scienfitically true' either.

Ancient un-pointed (un-vowelled) paleoHebrrew Liturgical Poetry is NOT Science -- you're just going to have to understand that we have come a long way from the superstitious days of Israelites sticking Midianite bronze pagan snake Idols on poles to ward off snakebites (Num 21:7)

Secondly, the contradictory 'genealogies' of the Greek-speaking "Iesous" in the canonical Greek gospels, just like the 2 contradictory Creation Myths of the Jews in Genesis, cannot be rationalised away by saying ('they trace a different blood line).

They also literally contradict each other when viewed side-by-side e.g. synoptically.

Even a 7 year old American school child is intelligent enough (when reading the text in translation) to ask whether or not Joseph's father was HELI (as the 3rd canonical Greek Gospel, 'according to Luke' whoever he was, states) or his father was YAKKOV / Jacob (as the 1st canonical Greek Gospel, 'acccording to Matthew', whoever he was, states).

BOTH cannot be correct ( one [or both !] of them are incorrect).

Forget the fact that the 1st canonical Greek Gospel deliberately (and maliciously !) skips over several (at least 4) Judaean kings in his list so that he can come up with the fake three sets of gemmatrial 14 generatiions each (D-V-D, the sacred gemmatrial number for 'David') - where, for example. in the genealogy of the 1st canonical gospel ('Matthew' whoeever he was) are the names of the Judean kings Ahaziah, or Joash, or Amaziah or Joaiakim?

Weren't these (4) allegedly historical personages also Iesous' allegedly distant kingly relatives too?

The 1st canonical 'gospel according to Matthew"s warped Genealogy displays a total of 42 generations between Abraham and Iesous while "Luke" shows 57 generations between 'Abraham' and Iesous'

There are many more examples of "Matthew's" errors in his fake 14-genealogy:

1:4 he mis-spells 'Aram' instead of "Ram
1:5 he uses Rachab with an impossible chronology
1:7 'Matthew' writes "Asaph" instead of "Asa"
1:10 "Amos" instead of "Amon"
1:11 'Matthew' mis-identiffies the "brothers" of Jeconiah -
1:13 "Matthew' misidentifies Abiud as a son of Zerubbabel.

We note in Tatian's DIATESSARON that he really did try to include in his 'harmony' every significant part of the four Canonical gospels into his book, - but he had to leave out the 2 genealogies - since he noticed that the literal contradictions between "Matthew" and "Luke" were so clear and pervasive he could not think of a way to 'harmonize them' at all.

That is because the two genealogies in the Greek canonical Gospels (like the 2 Creation Myths of the Jews in Genesis) simply cannot be harmonised with each other. Plain and Simple.


Anyone who tries to harmonise them would be 'making stuff up' and not looking at the actual texts.

Clearly, like the authors of the Cration Myths in the Book of Genesis (or the compiler of the Noach flood stories or the writers of Exodus Myths) the writer of the 1st gospel is writing 'Midrashic Haggadah Legends' and not pure scientifical 'historical facts' to be understood as 'literaly tru' - the writer of 'Matthew' (whoever he was) wants his (3) fake groups of 14 generations each and three fake groups of 14 generations eacch he will get - no matter what - even if he has to lie about it (or omit some inconvenient 'sinful' Judean kings that iff he included them, would cause him to go a few beyond the magical numbeer 14 (and thus ruin his fake midrashic D-V-D gemmatrial schema of 14 genrations).

Your rationalisation of these textual contradictions show that you are not in anyway meaningfully conversant with the mateiral you purport to discuss (and you also manage to confuse youself in the process) and your unwillingness to examine these texts letter for letter (i.e. by close reading) shows that you have absolutely no real desire to get to the real truth of what is going on with these traditions.

Maybe it's just too scary for you, who knows.

But it is high-time you stopped trying to foist your ignorant worldview on rational, thinking, educated persons.

edit on 14-5-2011 by Sigismundus because: skipppppping keeeeyyyyboardsssss

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:42 PM

So if man-made products derived from NATURE through Bionics or Biomemetics or Biomimicry who PUT the Intelligence in nature?

Blind chance, unguided process or an Intelligent Designer – Creator?
reply to post by edmc^2

This is getting a bit ridiculous now. Once again: scientists aren't claiming it happened because of "blind chance"!!! They say everything is the result of natural processes...why? Because everything we know is based on them, and there's zero evidence in favour of your creator theory. For example, we KNOW how birds evolved, so your "OMG, if we create planes then birds require a creator too" claim is nonsense.

Once again, nothing you post could be considered objective evidence in favour of the god hypothesis.

What's even more hilarious is that you mention "objective evidence", and then follow it up by talking about Romans 1:20
The bible isn't objective evidence...but of course you've been told that already, you just chose to ignore it

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:13 AM
reply to post by MrXYZ

According to one definition of objective evidence, it is:

Information which can be proven true, based on facts that substantiate the change being made. The evidence must not be circumstantial but must be obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means.

So in short Objective Evidence is based on “evidence...obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means”

In other words it agrees with the Scripture that the evidence of the existence of a Creator are “perceived by the things made” by him.

Thus “through observation, measurement, test or other means” the objective evidence that nature provides has ALL the Hallmark of intelligence. Or as one popular magazine whose biased against creation puts it a “feat of engineering”.

And everyone knows and accept the fact (except you et-al of course) – that a “feat of engineering” requires intelligence. And Intelligence requires a thinker (except you et al of course) , a thinker requires a mind (except you et al of course) , a mind requires a brain (except you et al of course), a brain requires a body, a Person - an Intelligent Person an Intelligent Entity the Creator.

Here's a simple challenge to you (again)

Since I've already proven and provided objective evidence that “Life Comes Only from Life”, it's your turn to provide an Objective Evidence of your belief that “Life Comes Only from Non-life!

And please don't weasel out of this by just saying "we don't know" – because We DO -(you just can't admit it)!


top topics

<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in