Turns Out, Science and Religion Get Along Just Fine

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


What concept of vision of creation aren't you understanding? Jewish writings indicate that the patriarchs (Seth, Enoch etc) were shown a vision of creation and Moses the same. Whether moses actually saw a vision or was given oral tradition from visions of previous patriarchs is debateable.

Jeremiah was given a vision of the destruction of the entire plantet....do you think he was actually there?

The use of visions are prevelant in the bible so it is no stretch to say the author (or someone previously who passed it down) was just watching a movie so to speak. He quotes god who is apparently narrating it directly, the rest are his own thoughts.

reply to post by raymundoko

Okay...

You're saying a human had a literal vision of creation and that's what is being described in Genesis. Well that description literally says stars are created on day 4 and people on day 6. So I still don't understand how you think your perspective theory works.

usertwelve
If you feel the warmth of the sun on your face you have evidence that the sun exists. Not proof but a bit of evidence. The same goes for God. Those that have experience have evidence. Those that have not do not.

This is a good example but maybe a little inaccurate. Let me explain, feeling warmth on the face isn't evidence of anything other than the sensation of warmth. It would be over-reaching to immediately ascribe the experience as evidence of the sun. The same with religious or spiritual experiences. To have one, while it sure may seem like there is a god or some sort of discrete intelligence or several, it doesn't necessarily mean that that there is. I only mention this because it is this particular evidence I am trying to make sense of.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


No, the human watching the vision saw stars, the sun and the moon on day 4 so wrote down that they had been made. God did not say that, God said for them to appear. However, on day 6, god DID say LET US MAKE MAN. He was directly saying "Hey, I am making this right now, check this out."

You have to understand each book of the bible is written differently. It is obvious it has different authors because each author applies his point of view, writing style etc to the book he has authored. The bible is very clear when God is actually saying something and when a human is simply relaying what he saw or recounting life experience.

Edit: I really don't understand why this is difficult to grasp...I was never indoctrinated into unscientific beliefs, so I feel like I understood this almost right away when I read the bible for the first time. Especially since my advanced degree was in Atmospheric Physics. The first thing I thought about was a primordial atmosphere diffusing the light from the sun/moon and blocking any actual vision of them. It's been proven scientifically that plant life can grow in a diffused light environment and it is a popular setup for greenhouses.

reply to post by agnisvaha

It's sounds like you may have evidence yourself but are unsure what to make of it.

reply to post by usertwelve


Well, yes, and to be more specific.. I'm very curious about the veracity of subjective evidence that a person(s) use(s) to prove an objective God? It's true that spiritual or religious experiences, for many of us, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is something out there; something tangible but how do we know that something is God? It could just as easily be a delusion or a subconscious archetype (Jung) appearing autonomous? The experiences could be the effect of a type of timelessness or time slowing based on features of the material universe we've yet to fully comprehend but have somehow been enabled to tap in to?

In relation to the thread topic, scientist, by and large are skeptical of any claims of invisible beings, pixies, goblins, cloud-riding heroes, devils, unicorns, dragons, etc. And in a Universe that is proving itself to be increasingly objective can we afford not to ask these questions?

reply to post by agnisvaha

I agree. We should question everything, even our own mind. After all it has been known to play tricks on us. Personal evidence is just that, personal. Each of us has to weigh it against the world around us (situational context) to validate it's authenticity. In other words we look to science to explain our experience first, if it yields no results then we must prove our evidence to be more than coincidence. If we skip these steps we are left only with blind faith.

Additionally, scientist, by and large only share publicly the things that compliment their career.

reply to post by usertwelve


And nowhere in the bible is blind faith asked for. Even peter and Paul said each person must prove to themselves if they think it is true.

Blind faith is a man made dogma.

reply to post by raymundoko

You have to understand each book of the bible is written differently. It is obvious it has different authors because each author applies his point of view, writing style etc to the book he has authored.

I do understand this. I also take it further and say every word was authored by a man. But yes… even from a believer view point I understand there are various authors. That said, I am most interested in what is most accurate theologically as I am attempting to say the Christian belief is unscientific.

I do understand your vision thing now. To me what you are doing is basically rewriting Genesis with your idea. I don't see sound reason in scripture that supports it. Most Christians I have talked to believe the whole of Genesis creation was written by someone in divine communion with god. Yours suggests parts are the word of god, and parts the word of man, and the parts that were man was confused by what he was seeing due to atmospheric conditions. I really don't think Biblical Israel believed that about Genesis. If you can find something to corroborate this as a prevalent belief among Jews/Christians, at any point in time, I would be interested. As of right now I am seeing a different theological position towards Genesis.

.I was never indoctrinated into unscientific beliefs, so I feel like I understood this almost right away when I read the bible for the first time.

What are your scientific thoughts on Genesis saying whales and birds were the first creatures. That dinosaurs and humankind were created together. That the Ark would have then had 2 of each dinosaur. Moses splitting the red sea. Early humans living nearly a thousand year lifespans. A man living inside a whale for 3 full days.

That's another part I don't understand about your perspective theory by the way. You need to apply it to the rest of Genesis then. How does diffused light negate the later parts of Genesis about the creation of animals?…

Also isn't diffused light still light? You're saying this person saw diffused light in his vision yet he says no light reached Earth until day 4. Why would he say that about his vision if he was seeing diffused light the whole time?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I don't think dinosaurs and man lived together. That would have to be proven and I don't really see that happening. I don't think dinosaurs were on the ark either. I think they were extinct before man was created. Animals go extinct all the time.

Also, evolution agrees that sea life came first. The term used in Genesis is "fish and other sea life" and the author does not say whale, he says "great sea creatures". Whale is a mistranslation.

Jonah was also swallowed by a great sea creature. What type is not specified. For that matter we don't even know if jonah lived. The account says his soul cried out from Sheol. So it's a debateable subject in theology if in fact Jonah died and was resurrected or actually lived through the ordeal.

reply to post by raymundoko

I don't think dinosaurs and man lived together. That would have to be proven and I don't really see that happening. I don't think dinosaurs were on the ark either.

I have posted both an English translation that predates King James Version and now upon your request one translated directly from Hebrew. They both clearly state all the land creatures along with humans were created together. The proof for what Genesis says has been posted. In full. Twice. From two different translations deemed accurate sources. Now since Genesis says that and the Bible says two of every creature was on the Ark. It's the logical conclusion dinosaurs would then be on the Ark according to the Bible.

I think they were extinct before man was created. Animals go extinct all the time.

That's reasonable with science. Hence the conflict.

Also, evolution agrees that sea life came first.

Genesis said that sea life and birds were created together. Birds. That's not how evolution agrees it happened. There were all sorts of land animals before birds.

The term used in Genesis is "fish and other sea life" and the author does not say whale, he says "great sea creatures". Whale is a mistranslation.

Okay. Using the Hebrew translation as you instructed me to do it still says birds were made along side them.

Jonah was also swallowed by a great sea creature. What type is not specified. For that matter we don't even know if jonah lived. The account says his soul cried out from Sheol. So it's a debateable subject in theology if in fact Jonah died and was resurrected or actually lived through the ordeal.

Elaborate on how he could live through the ordeal of living without oxygen for 3 days and in the presence of the 'great sea creatures' digestive process in scientific terms. I'll let the idea of physical resurrection slide

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


It never says man was created at the same time as dinosaurs. It does say man was the last and final creation. Everything else you are reading into it on your own.

reply to post by raymundoko

It also doesn't say rhinoceroses were made on the 6th day. Are we to conclude Genesis says rhinoceroses were not made?? How about elephants and giraffes. It doesn't explicitly say they are created either.

What Genesis quite clearly does say is that all the land animals were made at the same time as man. Here I will post again the direct translation from Hebrew:

24 And G-d said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so.

25 And G-d made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and G-d saw that it was good.

26 And G-d said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'

27 And G-d created man in His own image, in the image of G-d created He him; male and female created He them.

The only way you can exclude dinosaurs from this is if you say dinosaurs didn't exist. We know scientifically dinosaurs did. Therefore they should be included in this just as the elephants and giraffes and rhinoceroses are if Genesis is right. Let me ask you. Should we put dinosaurs on a previous day of Genesis then?? Which one….and why?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


If a day is an indeterminate amount of time, then it is perfectly within reason that some animals were created before others, and some may have died out before others were created. Nothing in that scripture rules that out. It just means that none of them started to be created until the 6th day.

You have added straw man arguments that nobody ever claimed.

I never said Dino's were made before day 6. I already discussed that the term "Day" used in genesis is the same "Day" used to describe the entire life of David, then Solomon etc. It means a period of time. It is not the same "Day" used when the bible says "on the first day of the month".

You must have missed that post.

reply to post by raymundoko




Bravo... You get top scores.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Concerning Jonah, I am of the line of thought that Jonah actually died in the creature and was resurrected. Even Jesus stipulated that Jonah was a precursor to him in that he had been in the belly of the fish for 3 days implying that his situation and Jonah's were similar. He sacrificed himself to save a boat full of people. He then had an entire city repent from their wrongdoing.

So I, based off the wording of the account of Jonah and other scriptures/events in the bible, believe that Jonah actually died and was resurrected after his body washed ashore.

I can't explain nor is there scientific proof that an animal would be able to carry Jonah alive for three days. Hence, I do not accept dogma that currently claims that. Again, the account of Jonah says that his soul cried out from sheol. Sheol is the grave which implies he was dead. However there is plenty of speculative science concerning cloning and memory transfer...

NIV:

He said: "In my distress I called to the LORD, and he answered me. From deep in the realm of the dead I called for help, and you listened to my cry

NLT:

He said, "I cried out to the LORD in my great trouble, and he answered me. I called to you from the land of the dead, and LORD, you heard me!

reply to post by Grimpachi


Because you are too inept to understand it, there are mental gymnastics involved?

reply to post by raymundoko

Nothing in that scripture rules that out.

So address the bit about birds then. Birds being created on day 5. Even if each 'Day' is a gazillion years it wouldn't change Genesis is saying birds are made before all the land creatures. Science does not concur. Birds evolved from land creatures. Orgin of birds.

reply to post by raymundoko

And nowhere in the bible is blind faith asked for.

Did I imply that it did?

reply to post by usertwelve


No, Sorry, I was making a general comment.