Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

To say that such an interpretation is taking the Bible "literally" seems like a contradiction in terms.

I don't disagree with that assessment. However, it's not interpretation and the facts are the same. the Bible contains all of those elements, so maybe when someone says they take the Bible literally, that may be a factor in their answer.

 

[gerg]

However, it's not interpretation and the facts are the same. the Bible contains all of those elements, so maybe when someone says they take the Bible literally, that may be a factor in their answer.

It would be useful for you to clarify your position. Do you, for example, believe that Genesis is a literal, historical account of the creation of the universe?

Nevertheless, for the Bible to contain allegories, it must contain sections which use figurative elements. Subsequent, an entirely literal Bible cannot, by definition, contain allegories. Of course, saying that the Bible contains allegories (or, in fact, does not) begs the question of why this is the case, a point on which people typically say that they take the Bible literally to refer to reading it as an entirely literal document.

 

[JGS]

Why don't all good people go there?

Don't know. However, many verse allude to two things happening to good people

1. They live forever on earth
2. They live in heaven

When you here about Jehovah's Witnesses and the number of 144,000, this is the number they think are going to heaven with the rest being on Earth.

There could also be two classes of heaven with a small group (the 144,000 menetioned) ruling and a second class of subjects.

Like I said, I haven't figured it out yet. All I know is I don't have a particular desire to live in heaven although I do have a desire to not die and to worship.

What does it mean then to be forgiven by god?

It means what it states. It means that God will erase your sins from his memory and willl not call them to mind. It does not mean once saved always saved as repentance is required to be forgiven.

Can a murderer who is forgiven by god enter heaven?

If he is someone that goes to heaven, sure. Him being a murderer has nothing to do with it unless he's unrepentant.

Also what about people who've never had a chance to learn about god but never did a bad thing?

Never doing a bad thing is relative, but it's not mankind's place to judge what hapens to those ones. My personal opinion is that there's no particular reason why God would judge someone wicked if they never heard of him and never had the opportunity to. Most people have though. The exception to this is children who tend to face whatever judgement their parents do.

 

[JGS]

It would be useful for you to clarify your position. Do you, for example, believe that Genesis is a literal, historical account of the creation of the universe?

I am torn because I don't really want to get into this. My belief on it is pretty solid, but it will be misinterpreted out the wazoo. I discussed this at length earlier in the thread, but here is a synopsis.

I'm leaving Adam & Eve out of it, but I will say that the creation account is in harmony with science with the exception of it being created rather than chance.

I believe the creation days are not 24 hours and nowhere in scripture does the length of creative days link to a day or even a fixed number of years. The creation days were a way for the writer to explain how the universe & earth came to be to his audience and does not change the fact that it took millions/billions of years to get there. Obviously, the evolutionary process indicates that these overlap so they were simply referring to the creative structures he was working on. There's no particular reason for me to doubt genealogies though.

Nevertheless, for the Bible to contain allegories, it must contain sections which use figurative elements. Subsequent, an entirely literal Bible cannot, by definition, contain allegories. Of course, saying that the Bible contains allegories (or, in fact, does not) begs the question of why this is the case, a point on which people typically say that they take the Bible literally to refer to reading it as an entirely literal document.

Then the Bible is not literal. The problem is some would argue that if you say the Bible is not literal, then you say the Bible is not true which is incorrect. The Bible can be true and include those elements.

The Bible contains huge section, almost entire books, using figurative elements. All of those parts are necessary because not all of the Bible is written for history's sake or even for the Bible's times version of current events. Allegories and symbolic language are needed to help people of the day grasp what is being said of the future or even what's going on in the present when they don't understand. Ditto for parables.

 

[Slightly Live]

Why would you leave Adam and Eve out of it? There are a a part of Genesis as much as the creation of the Earth is.

Of course, in no way could anyone reconcile the notion of Adam and Eve and the factual truth of the origin of man - the fact is the whole Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden element is easily the most debunked and clearly false part.

 

[Dever]

I am torn because I don't really want to get into this. My belief on it is pretty solid, but it will be misinterpreted out the wazoo. I discussed this at length earlier in the thread, but here is a synopsis.

I'm leaving Adam & Eve out of it, but I will say that the creation account is in harmony with science with the exception of it being created rather than chance.

This was probably discussed earlier in the thread, but just to recap in short, how do you respond to the claim that the Bible says birds came before land animals when modern science tells us otherwise?

 

[gerg]

The most scientifically congruent element of Genesis is the claim that God created the universe, and even then that proposition contradicts the metaphysical naturalism that underwrites scientific enquiry. Depending on your emphasis in regards to the elements of scientific study, it may not contradict the scientific method.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Yeah, I'm sure this is the best advice I'll be able to get on the problem.

I assume from some of your comments that you're still quite young. One of the most important things you need to understand is that you'll survive this--whether you end up returning to Christianity or not. I think what you're going through is just a natural part of becoming your own person, rather than merely accepting what your parents tell you. I went through the same process, and I can only guess that everyone else does, too (though perhaps not to the same degree as those who have to question everything they've based their lives on). So, just accept that this is something you have to go through, understand that you will get through it, and realize that you'll be a stronger person on the other side of it. I clearly don't know your parents, but I would definitely consider opening up to them about what you're going through--unless they're crazy or stupid, they'll probably be able to offer you some wise counsel even without paying for a therapist.

In any case, talking about what the "denominator" would be in order to work out the mathematical probability for the conditions of life is generally side-stepping another main fault of anthropomorphic arguments, which is that they make the logical leap from "highly improbable" to "impossible".

Well, that may be true. If the claim is that it's impossible because it's improbable, then clearly they're making that leap. If the claim is that it's simply impossible, then there isn't that leap. Of course, they would still have to prove the impossibility.

My questions about how to fix the denominator had to do with whether we should paint one side of the die blue. Obviously, we want to know the probability of there arising a planet with the conditions necessary to sustain life. The argument is that such a planet is either so highly improbable or impossible that no such planet would ever arise by chance, and so any that exists must have been intentionally created. So, we want to know what is the probability of such a planet being formed by chance. The die represents chance--each side being one actual possibility. If it is impossible for a planet with the conditions necessary to sustain life to arise by chance, then it is not an actual possibility, and so we shouldn't paint one side of the die blue. On the other hand, if there is no God and so whatever does exist must have arisen by chance, then of course we have to paint one side of the die blue. To say that chance and intention are represented respectively by rolling the die or placing the die with one side up is to say that only that which can occur by chance can be done by intention, but there's no reason to think that that is so.

So, back to how we figure out the probability. One method--and this is the method adopted by the article linked to--is to add up improbable circumstances, thereby making the whole increasingly improbable. (Of course, it's simply assumed that these are improbable circumstances, and no probability is actually fixed for them, so I'd say that, at least as presented, this is an imprecise argument masquerading as convincingly precise.) Another method would be to count how many planets there are and count how many have the necessary conditions to sustain life. This wouldn't give us the exact probability, but would give us a very good estimate. However, only if those planets had arisen by chance should they be included in the calculation--if they were purposefully designed, then they don't tell us anything about the probability of such a planet arising by merely natural causes. So our differing assumptions will determine what we do at this point; if they were purposefully designed, then it could very well be the case that such planets cannot arise by chance, yet our calculation--if we included them--would indicate that they could.

In all, I'd say that both the website's argument and your counterargument assume your conclusions, and so neither is particularly convincing. If we knew the probabilities involved--in either argument--then we could assess the credibility of each.

I'm sorry, I'm confused on the confusion stats thing. No matter what the denominator is, as long as the numerator is 1, there is a chance of it happening. And given enough time/repeated attempts, the chance of that occuring is only greater and greater? If the chances are so minute that a person would side with the idea of a creator, I still don't see how that discredits the chance theory such that they cannot acknowledge it...

The probability doesn't increase with more trials--it's equally improbable with each trial. What changes is our expectation of what we should see. (This may have been what you meant, but I wanted to clarify.)

even then that proposition contradicts the metaphysical naturalism that underwrites scientific enquiry.

Metaphysical naturalism does not underwrite scientific inquiry. If it did, you would never have seen the development of science in Christian Europe. The belief that nothing but the natural universe exists is unnecessary to believe that the natural universe is orderly and can be logically understood.

One final note if anyone is interested: I'm not opposed to continuing the slavery discussion. I'm merely opposed to continue wasting my time on that ankle-biter, Dude Abides.

 

[JGS]

Why would you leave Adam and Eve out of it? There are a a part of Genesis as much as the creation of the Earth is.

I left them out for the answer. I actuyally addressed them in my geneaology statement.

However, how they tie in to cavemen and what not isn't explained at all so it's complete conjecture on my part to how how that all worked. The creative days is not.

 

[gerg]

To say that chance and intention are represented respectively by rolling the die or placing the die with one side up is to say that only that which can occur by chance can be done by intention, but there's no reason to think that that is so.

This, and especially in regards to the matter at hand, seems like circular reasoning to me. The whole point is on what basis we have to think that it would have been impossible for the Earth to have been created on the first place.

In all, I'd say that both the website's argument and your counterargument assume your conclusions, and so neither is particularly convincing.

Not really. Mine has Occam's razor on its side. For what reason should we think that the universe, for example, has a purpose?

Metaphysical naturalism does not underwrite scientific inquiry. If it did, you would never have seen the development of science in Christian Europe. The belief that nothing but the natural universe exists is unnecessary to believe that the natural universe is orderly and can be logically understood.

Fair enough. I overstated that part.

 

[JGS]

The most scientifically congruent element of Genesis is the claim that God created the universe, and even then that proposition contradicts the metaphysical naturalism that underwrites scientific enquiry. Depending on your emphasis in regards to the elements of scientific study, it may not contradict the scientific method.

That's a fancy way of saying that creation doesn't fit what science thinks. The creation process is in pretty good harmony with what science thinks happened with the possible exception of the bird thing that Dani brought up a few days ago.

 

[Dever]

The probability doesn't increase with more trials--it's equally improbable with each trial. What changes is our expectation of what we should see. (This may have been what you meant, but I wanted to clarify.)

The probability of there being at least x amount of life sustaining planets does increase with the number of trials. I get what you're talking about though. Hope this example makes sense:

The chance of rolling a 3 when using a normal six sided dice is 1/6. But the chance of rolling at least one 3 when the dice is thrown multiple times is much higher.

 

[gerg]

That's a fancy way of saying that creation doesn't fit what science thinks. The creation process is in pretty good harmony with what science thinks happened with the possible exception of the bird thing that Dani brought up a few days ago.

Again, this is all when you stop looking at Genesis from a factual perspective. I'm not arguing against viewing it as an allegory; I'm arguing against using it as a literal text, to which interpreting it as anything other than what it directly says runs contrary.

 

[JGS]

Again, this is all when you stop looking at Genesis from a factual perspective. I'm not arguing against viewing it as an allegory.

You can view it as factual. In fact you can view it as literal. A day is not a figurative word, it's a relative one.

 

[gerg]

You can view it as factual. In fact you can view it as literal. A day is not a figurative word, it's a relative one.

Okay. Fair enough.

It's time I leave this thread for now, anyway. I've got work to do!

 

[JGS]

Okay. Fair enough.

It's time I leave this thread for now, anyway. I've got work to do!

Thanks for not continuing it!:lol

 

[Pandaman]

That's a fancy way of saying that creation doesn't fit what science thinks. The creation process is in pretty good harmony with what science thinks happened with the possible exception of the bird thing that Dani brought up a few days ago.

and how the earth does not predate the sun.
or plants for that matter.

there is no reasoned interpretation of genesis that an honest man can say 'fits' in with the known facts. and that's just with the first creation story. there are two of them, after all.

 

[JGS]

and how the earth does not predate the sun.
or plants for that matter.

there is no reasoned interpretation of genesis that an honest man can say 'fits' in with the known facts. and that's just with the first creation story. there are two of them, after all.

Genesis doesn't say that & yes I've read the first chapter, but all means quote away.

 

[gerg]

Thanks for not continuing it!:lol

I can't tell if you're laughing at me or not...

(As you can see, I suck at disowning myself from interesting discussion.)

 

[JGS]

I can't tell if you're laughing at me or not...

(As you can see, I suck at disowning myself from interesting discussion.)

I promise I'm not laughing at you. I ddn't want to get into the discussion so I'm thankful it's not continuing.

And for further goodwill, thanks for the statistics explanation from the other day.

 

[Pandaman]

Genesis doesn't say that & yes I've read the first chapter, but all means quote away.

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

so according to your interpretation of a day being un unknown but presumably vast length of time, how many millions of years did the earth and plants exist before stars?
:lol

 

[JGS]

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

so according to your interpretation of a day being un unknown but presumably vast length of time, how many millions of years did the earth and plants exist before stars?
:lol

:lol
Thanks for following protocol.

Again, Genesis doesn't say stars were created after plants.

 

[Kinitari]

:lol
Thanks for following protocol.

Again, Genesis doesn't say stars were created after plants.

Maybe I am reading that quote wrong, but to me it reads like it does - can you clarify?

 

[Pandaman]

:lol
Thanks for following protocol.

Again, Genesis doesn't say stars were created after plants.

I'm not particularly surprised when you're selectively illiterate.

Cute how you forgot about the planet earth too, that's equally as absurd as the notion of plants predating the sun.

 

[Dever]

:lol
Thanks for following protocol.

Again, Genesis doesn't say stars were created after plants.

3rd day: Vegetation
4th day: the Sun and the Moon

??

 

[gerg]

Your incredibly liberal interpretation of Genesis is really pushing the limits for a "literal" reading of the text, JGS.

What you're describing is a figurative interpretation of the text, and not a literal one.

 

[JGS]

Maybe I am reading that quote wrong, but to me it reads like it does - can you clarify?

I have before, but I'll boil it down.

Genesis 1:1 tells the order and it is not a part of the creative days meaning no timetable was ever placed on the universe or earth's creation.

The creatives days are used to explain the earth getting ready for life and ultimately man.

The creative days don't necessarily need to be in a consecutive order, but could be concurrent or overlapping. It seems pretty clear from the verses that the days are lumped together by function and particular groups. The days intentionally don't mix up the various groups.

Therefore, one day is discussing atmosphere and the sun and moon becoming visible (Not coming into existence as it can be assumed they are a part of the heavens and by their age this can be verified as well).

 

[JGS]

Your incredibly liberal interpretation of Genesis is really pushing the limits for a "literal" reading of the text, JGS.

It's not liberal, it's as stated. Your literal interpretation is what may be the problem...

Genesis is largely self explanatory.

 

[JGS]

I'm not particularly surprised when you're selectively illiterate.

Cute how you forgot about the planet earth too, that's equally as absurd as the notion of plants predating the sun.

Uhoh, it's getting ugly...

 

[Pandaman]

I have before, but I'll boil it down.

Genesis 1:1 tells the order and it is not a part of the creative days meaning no timetable was ever placed on the universe or earth's creation.

The creatives days are used to explain the earth getting ready for life and ultimately man.

The creative days don't necessarily need to be in a consecutive order, but could be concurrent or overlapping. It seems pretty clear from the verses that the days are lumped together by function and particular groups. The days intentionally don't mix up the various groups.

Therefore, one day is discussing atmosphere and the sun and moon becoming visible (Not coming into existence as it can be assumed they are a part of the heavens and by their age this can be verified as well).

and yet, just a second ago you said:
"The creation process is in pretty good harmony with what science thinks happened with the possible exception of the bird thing that Dani brought up a few days ago."

if you were willing to throw sequentially under a bus, why was birds a possible exception? an exception to what? it could only have been an exception if you believed the other creation events were more or less chronologically accurate.

 

[JGS]

and yet, just a second ago you said:
"The creation process is in pretty good harmony with what science thinks happened with the possible exception of the bird thing that Dani brought up a few days ago."

if you were willing to throw sequentially under a bus, why was birds a possible exception? an exception to what, it could only have been an exception if you believed the other cretion events were more or less chronologically accurate.

Actually, I only sai that because I figured it would be brought up like it was months ago...

 

[dark_chris]

As far as I understand, marrying outside of the religion is a nono regardless, but much worse if you are a female. The idea is that the last name (and apparently) the religion is inherited from the father.

Only thing I know is that in Catholicism, its fine to marry a Muslim but for them, its fine too but they have their own Islamic Laws which prevents it from what I know.

 

[Pandaman]

Actually, I only sai that because I figured it would be brought up like it was months ago...

so.. what then, you lied?
those two points of view cannot exist harmoniously. you can't say that genesis is haphazard and random and then also have it be 'in good harmony with science'. 'it means whatever it hs to mean to be right, therefore its right' certainly doesn't fall anywhere close to my understanding of good science.

were you just hoping people would accept that and not look into it any further?

proverbs 30:6
Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

-

honestly, i just wish you could understand exactly what you are saying here:
(Not coming into existence as it can be assumed they are a part of the heavens and by their age this can be verified as well)

this cannot be assumed as distinction is made between their creation and the creation of the heavens and no, the fact that the genesis account is wrong is not evidence of your alternative interpretation. Seriously, what the hell. You can so easily say that genesis is in harmony with science because you know nothing of science.

 

[JGS]

so.. what then, you lied?
those two points of view cannot exist harmoniously. you can't say that genesis is haphazard and random and then also have it be 'in good harmony with science'. 'it means whatever it hs to mean to be right, therefore its right' certainly doesn't fall anywhere close to my understanding of good science.

How would that be a lie? Acknowledging a POV differing from mine is lying now? I didn't say it was haphazard. The account is pretty orderly.

I think you are trying to argue too hard without knowing how to do it. Just do like the others in your skill set and hurl insults.

proverbs 30:6
Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

I'm not adding words to scriputre. Actually, I get into trouble by bringing in other aspects of scripture which say consistently that God is timeless and has his own timetable not tied to ours.

honestly, i just wish you could understand exactly what you are saying here:
(Not coming into existence as it can be assumed they are a part of the heavens and by their age this can be verified as well)

this cannot be assumed as distinction is made between their creation and the creation of the heavens and no, the fact that the genesis account is wrong is not evidence of your alternative interpretation. Seriously, what the hell. You can so easily say that genesis is in harmony with science because you know nothing of science.

I don't understand your writing style at all. Is it written in "science" since I don't understand that either?:lol

Seriously, you just seperated the creative days but when I do it, it's not allowed- especially when the verse in question has no mention of days? I can't even tell if that's your argument though, so I'll stop. If those are your rules, I'll let you work with them.

I also haven't seen you discuss anything remotely scientific. Can I assume you're not familiar with it either.

 

[jdogmoney]

Just do like the others in your skill set and hurl insults.

Nice.

JGS, do you think humans evolved?

 

[EzLink]

There is a really easy defense of Genesis, that makes perfect sense and is what I fully subscribed to back when I was a Christian.

The meaning of "create" in genesis 1:1 is different from the meaning of "create" when used throughout the rest of the story (if you go back to the original language)

The usage in 1:1 means "create" as literally creating from nothing. After that though the way it is used can be more closely translated to "prepare". It's like saying "I'm going to make my bed". In 1:1 you are physically building, making the bed. After that you are making your bed, preparing it for sleep each night.

Basically EVERYTHING is created in genesis 1:1 (except for man). All of the planets, the stars, the animals, the water, the plants, everything. The seven day account is God PREPARING eden, making it habitable for man.

Also there is no time table given, so genesis 1:1 could have happened billions of years before the seven day creation story.

There you go. Easy and makes sense

 

[Nocebo]

Don't know. However, many verse allude to two things happening to good people

1. They live forever on earth
2. They live in heaven

When you here about Jehovah's Witnesses and the number of 144,000, this is the number they think are going to heaven with the rest being on Earth.

That seems like an odd number. You'd think that number would be filled by now since mankind has been around for tens of thousands of years.
Also do you think 1 is true? There are immortals living amongst us?

There could also be two classes of heaven with a small group (the 144,000 menetioned) ruling and a second class of subjects.

There could be? Why is this not clear? It seems rather important. According to the bible doesn't everyone who accepts god and repents get into heaven? I'm confused.

Never doing a bad thing is relative, but it's not mankind's place to judge what hapens to those ones. My personal opinion is that there's no particular reason why God would judge someone wicked if they never heard of him and never had the opportunity to. Most people have though. The exception to this is children who tend to face whatever judgement their parents do.

Is that what you hope God is like or what you know god is like? It seems to me you're making a lot of claims about God from your own personal view and not substantiated by anything.

Why do you not want to live in heaven by the way?

...

What are you now if you are no longer a christian and why? Sorry I'm new to this thread.
Some questions though what was there before god created the universe?

 

[Slightly Live]

There is a really easy defense of Genesis, that makes perfect sense and is what I fully subscribed to back when I was a Christian.

The meaning of "create" in genesis 1:1 is different from the meaning of "create" when used throughout the rest of the story (if you go back to the original language)

The usage in 1:1 means "create" as literally creating from nothing. After that though the way it is used can be more closely translated to "prepare". It's like saying "I'm going to make my bed". In 1:1 you are physically building, making the bed. After that you are making your bed, preparing it for sleep each night.

Basically EVERYTHING is created in genesis 1:1 (except for man). All of the planets, the stars, the animals, the water, the plants, everything. The seven day account is God PREPARING eden, making it habitable for man.

Also there is no time table given, so genesis 1:1 could have happened billions of years before the seven day creation story.

There you go. Easy and makes sense

Sounds like a poor attempt to retroactively frame Genesis around the actual truth.

So what about man being created before plants? Genesis 1:5-7
Men living to be over 900 years old?
The Flood?

 

[EzLink]

Sounds like a poor attempt to retroactively frame Genesis around the actual truth.

So what about man being created before plants? Genesis 1:5-7
Men living to be over 900 years old?
The Flood?

I meant the creation story in specific, not the whole of Genesis

I don't believe it anymore, I just never had issues reconciling the creation account with science from that perspective

I don't think its retroactively framing genesis either, those are the meanings of the translations, so that is a very reasonable interpretation

 

[Nocebo]

It's not liberal, it's as stated. Your literal interpretation is what may be the problem...

Genesis is largely self explanatory.

Where do fish come from?

 

[Pandaman]

How would that be a lie? Acknowledging a POV differing from mine is lying now? I didn't say it was haphazard. The account is pretty orderly.

First you said that the chronology was ordered, with the possible exception of birds appearing.

You then said:
"The creative days don't necessarily need to be in a consecutive order"
and then suggested that they run together as an alternative. Come to think of it, this does demonstrate that you probably do not know what 'consecutive' means, so that might also be an issue here.

Suffice to say, for your first statement to be true [that birds is a possible exception], the creative days has to be in consecutive order as they appear. well, you could allow for gaps between days, but that wouldn't really change anything.

since you cant possibly hold both viewpoints, you either lied [advanced an idea contrary to your beliefs(on genesis) in the hopes it would advance your root claim(christianity)] or you haven't actually thought your position through and are just saying whatever you think will help you 'win' at the time.

I think you are trying to argue too hard without knowing how to do it. Just do like the others in your skill set and hurl insults.

Wow, this paragraph is so inherently self defeating that i cannot say anything to it without detracting from it.

I'm not adding words to scriputre. Actually, I get into trouble by bringing in other aspects of scripture which say consistently that God is timeless and has his own timetable not tied to ours.

right, which is why the fourth day is actually about the atmosphere clearing and the sun was really created in the beginning along with all those stars. of course, you're certainly not hacking the scriptures apart there.

*cough*

Seriously, you just seperated the creative days but when I do it, it's not allowed-

pretty much, yea. i dont put any weight in the genesis myth, i can do whatever i please with it. You're the one who takes it seriously, so you're the only one who has to approach it consistently.

pick whatever interpretation you like, but you'll only get one. either its a consistent, consecutive account of creation in line with scientific understanding, or its not and you have to prop it up and explain away inconsistencies with allegory.

especially when the verse in question has no mention of days?

it doesn't matter, it uses the words evening and morning consistently to describe an interval of time, whatever amount of time that translates to in a human sense is irrelevant. and no, you cannot contend that there is no reference to time in genesis without us going back to that first post in which you claimed that birds might very well be out of order.

I also haven't seen you discuss anything remotely scientific. Can I assume you're not familiar with it either.

If its my contention that you do not understand science, for what possible reason would i attempt to use it in a discussion with you? Are you incapable of holding two thoughts in your head at the same time, or is that only when you're trying to be witty?

 

[Nocebo]

Genisis is weird, how come the order of creation is different in chapter 2 from chapter 1? Another thing, how do you explain the earth being covered in water from the beginning? That can't possible be in line with science.

 

[Slightly Live]

I don't think its retroactively framing genesis either, those are the meanings of the translations, so that is a very reasonable interpretation

No it's retroactive adaption. And a bad one at that. There is a very precise order in which God was supposed to have created these things as presented in Genesis.

I'll explicitly point these out so you can see how the order is specified.

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

This explicitly states that every plant was created on the earth before rain ever poured. Just stupid and factually incorrect nonsense.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

This explicitly states that God created animals specifically because man should be alone after he created Adam. Man did not come into existence before every other animal so again this is bullshit.

And after Adam has a fun time giving names to all of the animals, God decides Adam needs a special partner, so he creates Eve.

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

So after he created the animals to keep Adam company, he puts Adam to sleep and makes a woman from his rib. So the first female human came about after every animal was created.

Interpret the meaning of words all you want but Genesis is very explicit in a certain number of details. Your attempt of retroactive adaption falls flat when put against the order given in the account. There's no argument here. Go read it for for yourself. I checked out about half a dozen of the most popular versions of the Old Testament and everyone of them retains this explicit order.

Additionally, none of the versions prefer to adapt your alternative meaning for the term "create/adapted". So it's fair to say that the retroactive adaption argument falls flat on two specific accounts.

JGS implying that Genesis and science can co-exist is just laughable. If anyone wishes to attempt to explain the scientific validity of the Genesis account of the creation of everything, feel free.

I'll ask that JGS explain and clarify his statements about Genesis and science. Considering the above examples, it is clear that Genesis is a work of fiction, delusion or fantasy, not scientific fact. I'd be happy to explain anything above in greater clarity if need be.

 

[gerg]

Exactly. Reading Genesis at all "literally" is a recipe for disaster. (And if we want to get into a discussion about the meaning of the word "literal", then I propose that you read something literally when you do not consider any other sources of information when you read that text. You focus entirely on the meaning of the words as they are at face value.)

 

[Nocebo]

And after Adam has a fun time giving names to all of the animals, God decides Adam needs a special partner, so he creates Eve.

Except for the fish and other marine creatures. Since god did not bring them before adam and they weren't even created according to chapter 2 it seems.

 

[Nocebo]

JGS implying that Genesis and science can co-exist is just laughable. If anyone wishes to attempt to explain the scientific validity of the Genesis account of the creation of everything, feel free.

Especially in light of evolution. How can all the creatures of the sea be create before the land animals when marine mammals evolved from land mammals?

It's like religious people have this "fanboy" mentality. Fanboys eat up everything from a certain source like candy but when a different source writes the same / similar they are like "what the hell is this bullshit!? it makes no sense".

 

[JGS]

Genisis is weird, how come the order of creation is different in chapter 2 from chapter 1? Another thing, how do you explain the earth being covered in water from the beginning? That can't possible be in line with science.

Again, Genesis is pretty self explanatory:
Genesis 1 - Discusses the preparation of the earth to support life and ultimately man
Genesis 2 - Focuses on preparing a particular spot for man and sets the conditions for living there.
Genesis 3- Discusses the sin

I'm puzzled by the water thing. Considering that there is more than enough water right now to cover all the land masses several feet under water, I'm not sure why it would now be considered unusual.

 

[JGS]

First you said that the chronology was ordered, with the possible exception of birds appearing.

You then said:
"The creative days don't necessarily need to be in a consecutive order"
and then suggested that they run together as an alternative. Come to think of it, this does demonstrate that you probably do not know what 'consecutive' means, so that might also be an issue here.

I never said anything about it being consecutive order. Further I only said that it could be in concurrent order. You may want to recheck what I write. There's not point in arguing about it if you don't.

Maybe if I put it in list form, it will not tax your brain so much. The creative days could have been
1. Consecutive
2. Concurrent
3. Overlapping with one period of creation starting on the tail end of another one.

I never made any factual statement regarding how the days were alligned as the Scriptures don't say. What I did say is that nothing contradicted how science plays it out. In other words, we weren't burped out of a giant tortoise or something. It simply explains that God created us rather than nothing.

It is laughable that you try to get explicit details out of a it.

since you cant possibly hold both viewpoints, you either lied [advanced an idea contrary to your beliefs(on genesis) in the hopes it would advance your root claim(christianity)] or you haven't actually thought your position through and are just saying whatever you think will help you 'win' at the time.

This statement is idiotic. I don't know what sadder, you trying to get a lie out of that or me spending the time to explain it.

pretty much, yea. i dont put any weight in the genesis myth, i can do whatever i please with it. You're the one who takes it seriously, so you're the only one who has to approach it consistently.

This is the irony. You put a lot of weight into disproving it on the basis of science and then show yourself not to be too much of a lover of science either!:lol

it doesn't matter, it uses the words evening and morning consistently to describe an interval of time, whatever amount of time that translates to in a human sense is irrelevant. and no, you cannot contend that there is no reference to time in genesis without us going back to that first post in which you claimed that birds might very well be out of order.

What words would you think they would use to describe days?

If its my contention that you do not understand science, for what possible reason would i attempt to use it in a discussion with you? Are you incapable of holding two thoughts in your head at the same time, or is that only when you're trying to be witty?

So I'm not good enough. How very elitist of you. Thanks for trolling around here and enlightening me woth your wisdom. Oh, wait a minute, you're not doing that. Why are you here?:lol

 

[JGS]

Especially in light of evolution. How can all the creatures of the sea be create before the land animals when marine mammals evolved from land mammals?

Not true.

I am fine with evolution but evolution does not in any way prove species jumps so the flaw is assuming what you said is fact.

It's like religious people have this "fanboy" mentality. Fanboys eat up everything from a certain source like candy but when a different source writes the same / similar they are like "what the hell is this bullshit!? it makes no sense".

I don't have a fanboy mentality. I would rather not talk about it because it's always the same thing.

Gaffer: Do you believe the Genesis account is real?
Me: Sure
Gaffer: OMGLOLWTFBBB!!! You believe the earth was created in 7 24 hour days
Me: The Bible doesn't say that
Gaffer: LOL!! I know more than you and yes it does!
Me: Well, actually, the Scriptures indicate that God...
Gaf: Yadda, yadda, yadda, you have no proof. It's obvious complete opposite of science.
ME: How?
Gaffer: You don't deserve to know because you're stupid! EDIT: OK, I'll throw you a bone- look at this picture. See proof!

Me: OK

This is what the next few pages are going to be about.

 

[Nocebo]

I'm puzzled by the water thing. Considering that there is more than enough water right now to cover all the land masses several feet under water, I'm not sure why it would now be considered unusual.

As far as I know there was no water before there was land. Neither could it be there at the same time as earth (as in dirt) was formed. In genesis the planet was created as being covered in water, then later the water moved to one place. That, however, is very unlikely. Furthermore there would be "sky" before there was water wouldn't there?

Not true.

I am fine with evolution but evolution does not in any way prove species jumps so the flaw is assuming what you said is fact.

I'm sorry but it is a fact. Nothing in biology makes sense without it. Aside from that several other scientific branches of study confirm this fact independently.

Basically what you meant to say a page or so back was that genesis doesn't conflict with science as long as you ignore most of what science has discovered in the last 150 years. Not trying to put words in your mouth, but how does it not boil down to that? In science speciation through evolution is a fact.