The Genesis Account and How it Refutes Creationism

a reply to: TigStar82

This is one reason. Or can you explain the Genesis Account?

a reply to: TigStar82

Science gets edited over time ....does not mean that past science had the full truth of the matter and there is only one dogmatic text book for them . Editing not a bad thing .....re-thinking things is not a bad thing .....finding a better way to articulate the past is a good thing ....Having a condensed version of a subject may allow you time to build new book shelves for the many volumes that could be written on any one subject ....The Bible is just one of a few that falls into that type .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

It is enough for those of us that can see. Outstanding observation. You are a very keen, although just like me, person that fails at a lot.

a reply to: LifeisGrand

When God was talking to his son when he said: "Let us make man in our imagine" he was still talking to another invisible spirit like him though

I know that you are not alone in the camp that uses that text for the God head but there is another option that may expand the rest of the scriptures for you . The Us may just be the Divine council's ....Creation is not restricted to the seen world but also the unseen world where heavens is a plural .

originally posted by: TigStar82
Why do people still believe in the bible when there's so much scientific evidence that it is all BS. I grew up forced into religion, iv read the bible several times and to me its just as believable as reading a harry potter book. Its been edited so many times that its nothing like the original anyway so how can people trust what they read?

The further that Theoretical Physicists go , the more difficult it is for them to explain other than by a "creation" .Read up on it.Interesting stuff.

a reply to: Gothmog

What you mean is, I'll go off topic as I can't respond to the OP or anything related.

Most of the time posts like this are removed. I highly doubt it will be so, in this case.

Welcome to ATS.

a reply to: LifeisGrand
Gracias. And welcome to you.

a reply to: Gothmog

No. I mean. Welcome to how ATs deals with things. If it is convent to them, they will respond. If not, they will not. But thank you. You are the first to say so.

a reply to: Gothmog

I'd rather you deal with the OP. And consider things.

Well more than half of bible users just believe it's an allegory story. The creationists are a minority. It's been hundreds of years since the catholics believed the story to be allegory. Heck the big bang was theorized by George Laimatre who was a priest.

I am not a believer myself but I haven't met many Christians or Jews p who believe Genesis to be a factual story.

Just a head's up for Lifeisgrand.

Have a look for the book by the author Johnathan Gray called THE CORPSE CAME BACK.

Google book's have a preview you can read online but it cut's out many interesting answers he has come across.
books.google.co.uk...

Look through it to the section about the lost Squadron of planes that had to land in greenland in ww2 because they ran out of fuel back in 1942 and were so abandoned and left on the ice, they were in the ice for nearly 50 years but there depth was a surprise when some airplane enthusiasts tried to salvage them as they were very much deeper than they should have been.

This threw into doubt the validity of ice core dating as if the same dark and light ice striation technique had been used then they would have been buried for thousands of years according to that and of course the converse of that argument is that knowing the planes true age and there depth in the ice allowed there depth with there genuine age to be used to calculate an alternative dating for supposed over 100.000 year ice cores and that made them look to be only about 1700 years old when cross referenced to the depth of ice in which the planes were buried, so something was or is wrong with that dating technique, definitely so at the time the book was written.

A good read if you can get your hand's on it and it show's the invalidity and unreliability of some dating techniques which even today are regarded as concrete proof but of course therefore may very well not be reliable at all.

The bible or the scriptures as you call it was written by men for men. Now I'll take you to task on a day.
No matter what interpretation you want to put on it a day IS a period of time ie. the time it takes for the Earth to circle the sun. Please notice to claim a days time length you MUST have a Sun and an Earth.
Now before the big bang, or whatever defining moment you want to call it, there was not any Suns and not any planets to call Earth. Ergo, such a time scale as a day, at whatever length could not have existed.
And that's all I have to say on that.

Text

Text

So genesis is right , but the sun and moon were there, even though it says he placed them there? which one is it? If you are a believer, you are a flat earther. Globalism is one of the pillars of masonry.

originally posted by: TigStar82
Why do people still believe in the bible when there's so much scientific evidence that it is all BS. I grew up forced into religion, iv read the bible several times and to me its just as believable as reading a harry potter book. Its been edited so many times that its nothing like the original anyway so how can people trust what they read?

Please explain what scientific evidence there is that the Bible is BS.

Also, when and how was the Bible edited?

If you cannot cite any definite evidence of editing, when and how, or of any science that unambiguously disproves the Bible, then you have to re-evaluate your statements as having no basis in fact.

originally posted by: luthier
Well more than half of bible users just believe it's an allegory story. The creationists are a minority. It's been hundreds of years since the catholics believed the story to be allegory. Heck the big bang was theorized by George Laimatre who was a priest.

I am not a believer myself but I haven't met many Christians or Jews p who believe Genesis to be a factual story.

I am a Christian who believes that the content of the creation in Genesis 1 & 2 is factual, but it is not factual in a scince textbook sense.

It is more about the "why" of things than the "how" of things.

As an aside, I don't think ANY of my science textbooks from school could still be be considered factual. This is because science is always in flux, with old ideas thrown out and new ones supplanting them. When I was at school, the steady state universe was a highly regarded cosmology. With the WMAP survey, the Big Bang has now completely supplanted it.

The Bible, however, stands unchanged and unedited over the same time period yet still has legitimacy, while science has vacillated between agreeing and disagreeing with it. That, to me, gives extra credence to the Bible's accounts as being representative of an absolute truth.

originally posted by: crayzeed
The bible or the scriptures as you call it was written by men for men. Now I'll take you to task on a day.
No matter what interpretation you want to put on it a day IS a period of time ie. the time it takes for the Earth to circle the sun. Please notice to claim a days time length you MUST have a Sun and an Earth.
Now before the big bang, or whatever defining moment you want to call it, there was not any Suns and not any planets to call Earth. Ergo, such a time scale as a day, at whatever length could not have existed.
And that's all I have to say on that.

So, if you were in a place where you could not see the Sun or any stars, a day, as a period of time, would not exist?

Don't think so!

originally posted by: kenzohattori69

Text

Text

So genesis is right , but the sun and moon were there, even though it says he placed them there? which one is it? If you are a believer, you are a flat earther. Globalism is one of the pillars of masonry.

The Bible clearly refers to the curve of the Earth in Isaiah 40:22 "It is God who sits above the curve of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; [It is He] who stretches out the heavens like a veil And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in". (Note, the Hebrew word for curve in this passage is "chug" which also can mean circle, circuit, compass and is often used in conjunction with "the vault of the heavens").

Creationism has nothing to do with Globalism, Masonry or belief in a flat Earth. You are mixing up several different things.

a reply to: LifeisGrand

Creationism is a radical fundamentalist view of Scripture found in what is known as the Holy Bible.

actually that would be CHRISTIAN creationism - cos every other religion has its own creationism tail - that doesnt reference ` the bible `

just a clarification

a reply to: chr0naut
Stop being so pedantic. As a time concept a day has 86400 seconds so a "day" would be anywhere if you count out the seconds.. Buuut as I put in my answer before the big bang there was not a Sun, there was not an Earth so the concept to man was moot.
And don't say "you don't know what was there before the big bang so there might have been a Sun", no one knows.

The history how the word "creationism" was used demonstrates some of what LifeisGrand has said in the OP (see this comment in the middle regarding this idea/philosophy of "a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception", which is maybe a bit distracting from this thread, but you can search for that phrase in the middle of that comment to see some more connections in the way people think and where they get their ideas/philosophies from historically. Note that a person is alive long before they are born in relation to my thread about the myth that the "soul" is immortal and what that word really means; even those in favor of abortion acknowledge that a person is alive before they are born, try to think about what this way of thinking also described below may promote, part of a very old philosophy, Plato is involved again, just like he promoted Pantheism).

Creationism - Online Etymology Dictionary

creationism (n.)
1847, originally a Christian theological position that God immediately created a soul for each person born; from creation + -ism. As a name for the religious reaction to Darwin, opposed to evolution, it is attested from 1880.

James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin was highly regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar. Of his many works, his treatise on chronology has proved the most durable. Based on an intricate correlation of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean histories and Holy writ, it was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself. Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 B.C. ... Ussher calculated the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 1491 BC "on a Wednesday". [Craig, G.Y., and E.J. Jones, "A Geological Miscellany," Princeton University Press, 1982.]

One caveat, I have not been able to verify through a direct quotation that Ussher was talking about "the first day of creation" with that date. It could easily be that he was talking about "the Creation" event collectively, all 6 creative days, as in seperate from human history that starts on the 6th day with the creation of Adam and Eve (which he could also be referring to, I really have to look into what he says himself and what people at the time understood with the phrase "the Creation". Here's how wikipedia describes it on his page:

In this work, he calculated the date of the Creation to have been nightfall on 22 October 4004 BC. (Other scholars, such as Cambridge academic, John Lightfoot, calculated their own dates for the Creation.)

Also seems to have no direct quotations so I'd have to look into what wikipedia is referring to with "the Creation" (of what? Only humans? Only the earth? Or the universe and the earth as in Genesis 1:1 which is not even part of the 1st 'creative day'? So that would conflict with what the etymology dictionary says but not really surprising for a Trinitarian Archbishop). I have read elsewhere (perhaps the page on young earth creationism) that the current version of young earth creationism with the 'creative days' meaning literal 24-hour days and the sun being created after the earth and light, was popularized by the SDA long after, ah, found it:

The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the 20th century saw a renewed interest in proposals that the Earth was thousands of years old,...In 1923, George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist, wrote The New Geology, a book partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great Flood on the shape of the Earth.

Well, I'm still questioning if it was a "renewed interest" since like I said, I see no clear indication that Ussher or any of that time period viewed the 'creative days' in Genesis as literal 24 hour days (making their dates perhaps referring back to the end of the whole creation event collectively when human history starts). But I guess that's a little besides my point since even if Ussher believed that, I still wouldn't believe him. Here's a tip for everyone, don't follow the philosophies/ideas of Trinitarian Archbishops.

Note that the above time period for young earth creationism is consistent with the etymology and historical introduction of the word "creationism", by young earth creationists. The word "creationism" and "creationist" should only apply to them, especially if someone else doesn't want to use it for themselves to differentiate from these people twisting the bible to the point of discrediting it (for most, unintentional, I know, but still very harmful to people's understanding of what is true and their trust in the bible and providing bible critics with a nice straw man to debunk and ridicule the bible at the same time). Like Hillary Clinton winning vs Trump, people go with the lesser of 2 evils, only to still make the wrong choice and not see the 3rd option and I'm not talking about Hugh Ross' version of creation or voting for an independent politician, or those pretending the Genesis account is allegorical all-the-way through and make up their own version or interpret it anyway they feel like with that excuse (or cherry-pick that which they want to interpret as allegorical when it's not and I've even seen someone interpret something as literal when it actually was allegorical, but I don't remember if that was in Genesis chapter 1, but it's that whole Isaiah 5:20 'turning things upside down' all over again according to Eccl.1:9, 'nothing new under the sun').