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.
reply to post by MamaJ
The problem I have with this account is that it is open for interpretation. You could interpret it differently than I would. I read it and see a contradiction. I don't see a mention of God creating the universe twice. That just appears to be reading more into it than what is there. I can see why people do that, the account is seriously lacking in detail. But what makes your interpretation more correct than the person next you who looks at the account literally?edit on 5-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)
reply to post by NihilistSanta
Well educate me. Post some proof or links to show me the errors in my thought process. If you feel that my reasoning is flawed, then show me how. I am always open to learning new things. Though the contradictions are really only 1/3 of my reasoning on why the Biblical Creation account is flawed.
reply to post by onthedownlow
There are answers to all of those questions, but maybe ask them in a thread about evolution. I'm really trying to steer clear of the evolution debate, because I know that if I give a little leeway towards it, opponents of my position will try to hijack my thread and turn it into a thread about evolution. I don't mind bringing it up to compare to a point you are making about Creationism, but I'm not trying to argue about whether or not evolution is true or not in this thread.
reply to post by NihilistSanta
Before we come to Earth in the womb we have a desire in spirit to do so. This is our free will set into motion.
God shows us clearly that thoughts in spirit are indeed created in matter and for this reason we are told to have control of our thoughts.
reply to post by Krazysh0t
No problem and thanks for not dismissing it out right because it is a christian source. Let me know what you think after you have had a chance to review it. Granted its not meant to convert anyone but is a pretty fair look at the text from a scholarly perspective.
This type of procedure was not unknown in the literary methodology of antiquity. Gleason Archer observed that the “technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance” (1964, p. 118). These respective sections have a different literary motif. Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment. [This procedure is not unknown elsewhere in biblical literature. Matthew’s account of the ministry of Christ is more topical, while Mark’s record is more chronological.]
It is wise to remember that the Word of God was not written for the benefit of “scholars,” but for the common person. The Scriptures assume that the average person is able to understand the message and to know that the source is divine.
why do u insist on using the bible as a case for creation?
i will argure creation.
i wont argue bbiblical anything
John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
This suggests to me that the bible isn't meant for intelligent people, but rather for people who accept things blindly and not question the status quo. I mean again, the only thing that says the bible is divine, is the bible. What if you start off by questioning the divinity of the bible?
reply to post by 2XOHsurf
I would say that we need to try to devise a scientific procedure to study and analyze these occurrences and possibilities. I actually don't believe one way or the other about a soul. I feel that science doesn't do enough to address claims such as ghosts, spirits, the soul, the afterlife, demons, etc. Some of those things are unstudyable with our current understanding of science, but scientists like to laugh that stuff off without even giving it its due. I try to reserve judgment on these things until we can actually study these things outside of some psuedo-scientists basement.