Turns Out, Science and Religion Get Along Just Fine

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Genesis is not the creation from God's point of view. It is the creation from a human's standing (relatively speaking) on the earth. Anyone who studies scripture can come to this realization (especially in its original language). Once you realize that the creation account is perfectly within scientific understanding. You are the one clinging to a wrong point of view to prop up your case.

reply to post by raymundoko

Genesis is not the creation from God's point of view.

It is the creation from a human's standing

Post scripture to substantiate that.

You realize also that Genesis states humans were made on Day 6, right? How would it have been from their viewpoint if they didn't exist to have one the first 5 Days?

*Edit: now I do ultimately believe it was from a humans viewpoint Since I believe the whole Bible to be the work of man.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


To answer your first question I would say in full honesty that one must try to assert which accounts are telling of events, and which are trying to reflect either a metaphor upon the world, or our inner self, or upon that which is first(that which all religions refer to as their god - there is only one most high after all ? regardless of religion).

I would post a translation of the hebrew text if I had translated it, haven't done it as you might suspect. But I can show you the text in hebrew translated by another men if you would like.

Yes, I guess sometimes we must go out on a limb from our concrete views. We all do it, regardless of who we are and what we believe. So, on the other hand we have this concrete way of viewing the world, which only gives us so much, and on the other hand we have this dusty mirage of a way of viewing the world because almost most of us haven't seen it, so we have this thing called faith.
Troublesome yes.

Though for me, personally, I just try to know myself(my mind, and body, and how it works and how the world works as I look at my body and mind as a part of this world) and incorporate that into my view of the world which I view as truth. Sometimes I go with I guess I would say "gut" feeling (hard for me to convey what I mean as Icelandic is my natural language) and if proven wrong, I don't beat my head against a stone, rather accept the truth.

I agree, this kind of premise is just the OP's personal view and of course others alike and has no evident evidence other than what "rings" true to people. Guess that ties up with that gut feeling... já?

For me there is only one god, we can't describe him for the world is only a mirage of him. All religions talk of him(or whatever it/he/she might be). For me he is endless and eternal at the same time, the biggest the smallest, the center without center and yet ineffably more incredible.

As for the religions with many gods, I often view them with the observance that each of those gods are either a force in the world or a force within myself/ourselves.

If anything is unclear in my conveyance, please point it out to me as I translate in my head as I type.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

14 Then God said, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years. 15 Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth.” And that is what happened.

Notice he just says "Let lights appear". This is the only text attributed to God. If you go on after that you are reading the authors words about what he sees from his point of view (or the point of view of man). However, God just said let them appear. As in let them be visible to the earth.

Source: www.biblegateway.com...

Also, I've already explained previously that Moses was given a vision of the creation according to Jubilees. This is also where the Mormons lifted their "book of Moses" narrative from.

reply to post by raymundoko


You just quoted what I have been using…

Genesis 1:14 and 1:15 that you just used is on Day 4

Now since you say that's the part that God authored read the very next one. 1:16 Notice it says thats when the stars are made. And the Great Light that rules the day aka the Sun…which is also a star.

I've exhausted this. I'm not going to continue it.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


You're reading comprehension is pretty bad. 16 was written by the author and from his point of view. The stars, sun, moon had just become visible to him, so to him they had just been made. God just said let them appear, indicating that they had already been there, just not visible as we see them today. I explained that in the previous post, but you don't seem to understand at all.

reply to post by DaddyGuru


How is it ridiculous? Please offer something more to the thread than empty statements.

I am using the Douay-Rheims Bible which was translated from the Latin Vulgate not for the common person but for the educated. In other words, accuracy.

Day 1
1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.
2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.
3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made.
4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness.
5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

Earth is made before the stars. Water existed before the stars. None of that is agreeable with science. The light being referred to is separate from the light of stars since both stars and light reaching the Earth are specifically stated to occur later

Day 2
6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.

Earth's water is not frozen even though the Sun nor the stars are created yet.

Day 3
9 God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done.
10 And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done.
12 And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Again the oceans are not frozen even though the planet would be. Plants are growing on a frozen planet without light reaching the planet. Not agreeable to science

Day 4
14 And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:
15 To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.
16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.
17 And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth.
18 And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and morning were the fourth day.

Clearly stating this is the day both the stars (which includes the Sun) is created and light reaching the Earth occurs.

Day 5
20 God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.
21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22 And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth.
23 And the evening and morning were the fifth day.

Whales. Birds. Is this the origin of life on Earth as we understand it with science.

Day 6
24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.
27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

All the beasts & everything that creepeth on the Earth was made. Dinosaurs and Humankind co-existed. Science says nay.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


One point of interest lies in the observation that the word "ruach" translates as a pictogram of a strange object hovering over the water, lending credence to the ancient aliens theory. I personally find that a scientifically plausible suggestion - moreso than others, I might add.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Use a bible translated from original Greek and Hebrew, or read the original Hebrew with direct translation. You're using a bible that is a translation of a translation and hasn't been used in academia in years other than to discuss it historically. So you've no idea what you are talking about when you say it's for the educated. There are many excellent modern English translations available which far more accurately translate the original language. I've read many of them cover to cover.

I get it though. You want to hang on to this to prop up your case.

reply to post by raymundoko


Instead of attacking him/her, give us your preferred translation and compare it with established science. Let evidence do the criticizing here.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Well they guy really believes he is some type of monkey



Monkey Pose

reply to post by AfterInfinity

That's really the only way I can imagine justifying biblical accounts as true. That the myths are remnants of some prehistories interaction with aliens. The god as described by religions [most anyways] is absurd. What would be more offensive to the creator of all reality than religion? We turn god into some finite, barbaric, and all too human construct. A description of a tyrannical alien sure. A being of unfathomable knowledge and power…… and he really doesn't want you to work on a particular day of the week. Heh….

People get upset with me that I am anti religious as if I am offending god. That's what I find amusing, and in the event of its existence being true, quite ironic.

My thoughts anyways.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I've already linked a modern English direct translation. I'm also not sure where I attacked him...

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I'm not upset that you're anti religious at all. That's your business. I don't think God cares either. He did after all give us free will.

All I've pointed out is that you've propped your entire disbelief in the genesis creation on dogmatic religion and the incorrect assumption of man (for example a 6,000 year old earth). I am not a part of any specific religion.

reply to post by raymundoko

You're using a bible that is a translation of a translation

As is the "excellent modern English translations" you speak of no doubt...

Suggesting 'excellent English translations' means nothing if you leave it at that! I gave an excellent English translation.

The Bible was first translated to Latin. The Latin Vulgate is very close to the source material. You realize many of the modern 'translations' are not using source material but are just modernizing the vernacular of prior English translations like King James Version, right??

So again put forth an excellent English translation. I am curious which one you determine is one. Maybe I will re-post the entire Genesis with it

reply to post by raymundoko

All I've pointed out is that you've propped your entire disbelief in the genesis creation on dogmatic

That's absolutely not true. I could spend all day talking about why I don't believe in religions. I isolated Genesis to explore the topic of the thread. Your thread. Remember what that is? Religion and science are reconcilable. I am taking about a religion and am talking about science.

If I had picked the Raven Creation Story of the indigenous people of Pacific Northwest and dissected that none of you would have minded nor been offended. The people in this thread that are religious could care less if I made attempts at debunking the Sumerian gods and their creation myth. Why? You all know damn well why. Because you all yourself dismiss them offhandedly. You dismiss them as true for the same reason the atheists and anti-theists are dismissing yours. This isn't about science and religion being reconcilable. This is about you believers thinking science is reconcilable with your particular religion and or religious belief.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I actually love other creation stories and believe they are rooted in reality. I've discussed that in other threads including Hopi culture in this one. I've also stated that I've intensely studied multiple religions. I associate myself with no Christian Church but align with the teachings of Christ. I'm not offended in your beliefs at all. It's just obvious what your intent is.

reply to post by raymundoko

What is my intent?

I would never discourage anyone from reading or studying religious material from any let alone many sources.

However, since this thread is about reconciliation with science and you did just use that word reality. It would be intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge the fact these creation stories conflict in how creation transpired. The way this can be rectified is by taking them metaphorically and not saying they are all grounded in reality.

The other approach of course, and a common one amongst the religious pluralist, is to take the bits out of each religion they agree with and dismiss the rest. On what authority is this being done on? Of course we can find commonalties. Such as saying… look at all these religions that speak of an almighty creator. Surely then it points to truth. Never minding they speak of god's character in very different ways.

If they are all true then the Universe was literally made in different ways and god wishes you to conduct yourself in contradictory ways. The logic falls apart.

Pick any popular religion today and you have a huge schism within its followers on what are the metaphorical parts and what are the literal parts. So…. who's right? You? Can you tell me what parts of the Christian canon is to be taken literal and what parts metaphorical and can you clearly explain on what spiritual authority you do so? It sure seemed you were saying Genesis was literal fyi per your posts in this thread.

>>
Most people say science and religion are not at odds with each other.
>>

I am following this discussion for some days now... I obviously disagree, already mentioned somewhere I don't think that (Christian) religion, and here I mean IN PARTICULAR WHAT IS IN SCRIPTURES goes well at all with science.

For me it's a rather cheap way out to claim that things in the Bible are merely METAPHORS...or picking there or there and then freely interpreting what's actually IN the bible to claim that it would wonderfully go together with science.

I also think your thread and your claim that so many allegedly say religion/science are not at odds is ridiculous, since PEOPLE/SCIENTISTS HAVE BEEN TORTURED AND KILLED throughout the ages because they made scientific observations which were at odds with the Church.

Obviously, your astonishing finding that science/religion go together so well must have not been well known, at least back in the days when the gap between religion and scientific findings was so large that it legitimated to be burnt on the stake....

Also OP, I wonder what scientist you are. Are you in medicine? Can you explain to me how the VIRGIN Mary got a baby? (Not wanting to repeat the inconsistencies re:Genesis since we did that already plenty here in the thread. You will just keep bending it how it fits you, me thinks)

Also: Hint, hint! I may to an extent agree with you where you said that you lean towards the teachings of Christ, there is nothing wrong with that. But for me it's not a given, actually I am HIGHLY skeptical that the actual teachings of Christ are accurately reflected in scripture(s), the bible.

If I don't believe in the Bible...it would NOT make me (or anyone else) anti-religious, not even anti-theist. UNLESS, of course, someone insists that accepting the veracity of the Bible would be required to believe in a god or the teachings of Jesus. But why would that be?