The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

hinault

Safehands wrote: »

You are 100% entitled to hold that view, no argument!

The chronology of creation explained in Genesis tells us that morning and evening, as well as day and night were created before the sun was created. Obviously the writers did not know that the sun is responsible for day and night, morning and evening. That is a good example of what I meant when I said they had a limited scientific knowledge.

I don't believe that you are understanding Genesis correctly.

Genesis verses 3-5 state that God created light first

This "light" referred to is Energy. The writer of Genesis appears to understand that for matter to exist, energy must first exist.

Notice too that the writer of Genesis capitalises the words day and night in verse 5. Do Day and Night denote descriptions of what we refer to as day and night? Not necessarily.

Verses 14-16 denote God creating the Sun and divining that time be established as denoted by day and night (both day and night are not capitalised).

But how then can trees and herbs grow as stated in verses 10-13, before the creation of the Sun? That is a very good question. They could have grown as a result of the energy created in verse 3.

1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

1:2 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.

1:3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made.

1:4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness.

1:5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

1:6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.

1:7 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.

1:8 And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.

1:9 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.

1:10 And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

1:11 And he said: let the earth bring forth 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.

1:12 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.

1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

1:14 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:

1:15 To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth, and it was so done.

1:16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and The stars.

1:17 And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth.

1:18 And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good

J C

Morbert wrote: »

You don't have to accept that there is life on other planets. It's perfectly reasonable to be agnostic about the existence of life on other planets. What is compelling is the plausibility of life on other planets. This plausibility means, when you make a statement like "Earth is unique" or "life does not exist anywhere else", few people will find it convincing.

It's only plausible if such life was intelligently created ... spontaneous processes are just as impossible as a generator of life on other planets as they are on Earth.

Morbert wrote: »

Also, to be clear, atheists don't believe God is plausible. If an atheist takes the position "God is entirely plausible but I don't believe He exists because there is no cast-iron proof", then they are an agnostic in denial. And an unreasonable agnostic at that. Atheists instead actively believe God is implausible (Well, unless they are shoe atheists, but that's neither here nor there).

'Atheists' come in 'all shapes and sizes' as far as the existence of God is concerned ... some don't think He exists ... while some simply see themselves as opposed to Theists (and by extension, God, if He exists).

Morbert wrote: »

If an atheist takes the position "God is entirely plausible but I don't believe He exists because there is no cast-iron proof", then they are an agnostic in denial.

Any 'Atheist' reading this thread objectively would have to at least conclude that it is entirely plausible that God exists ... and they are therefore 'agnostics in denial' according to you ... yet another kind of 'Atheist', no doubt.
Here are no less than 6 proofs for the existence of God ... written by a former Atheist !!!
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

It's only plausible if such life was intelligently created ... spontaneous processes are just as impossible as a generator of life on other planets as they are on Earth.

'Atheists' come in 'all shapes and sizes' as far as the existence of God is concerned ... some don't think He exists ... while some simply see themselves as opposed to Theists (and by extension, God, if He exists).

Any 'Atheist' reading this thread objectively would have to at least conclude that it is entirely plausible that God exists ... and they are therefore 'agnostics in denial' according to you ... yet another kind of 'Atheist', no doubt.
Here are no less than 6 opinions for the existence of God ... written by a former Atheist !!!
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

FYP

robinph

hinault wrote: »

I don't believe that you are understanding Genesis correctly.

Genesis verses 3-5 state that God created light first

This "light" referred to is Energy. The writer of Genesis appears to understand that for matter to exist, energy must first exist.

1:16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and The stars.

1:17 And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth.

I think you are trying to rewrite the meaning of some vauge ancient story to make it fit better with current science as a dodgy proof that the author had some knowledge that they clearly did not.

The author who a couple of verses previously you are suggesting knew about energy, matter and light, then doesn't seem to know the relatively simple to figure out concept of the light of the sun being reflected by the moon.

hinault

robinph wrote: »

I think you are trying to rewrite the meaning of some vauge ancient story to make it fit better with current science as a dodgy proof that the author had some knowledge that they clearly did not.

The author who a couple of verses previously you are suggesting knew about energy, matter and light, then doesn't seem to know the relatively simple to figure out concept of the light of the sun being reflected by the moon.

So from what source was the moon supposedly reflecting light from?

robinph

hinault wrote: »

So from what source was the moon supposedly reflecting light from?

Seriously?

hinault

robinph wrote: »

Seriously?

Yeah seriously, after all this is entirely another rabbit hole of your own making.

robinph

hinault wrote: »

robinph wrote: »

Seriously?

Yeah seriously, after all this is entirely another rabbit hole of your own making.

I suggest that you go and investigate for yourself the source of what we refer to as moonlight. It will be a useful exercise in research. Do not use the bible as a reference.

hinault

robinph wrote: »

I suggest that you go and investigate for yourself the source of what we refer to as moonlight. It will be a useful exercise in research. Do not use the bible as a reference.

:rolleyes: Stick to the rabbit holes.

robinph

hinault wrote: »

:rolleyes: Stick to the rabbit holes.

So you have no answer for what the source of moonlight is, or for the inconsistencies between the claimed scientific knowledge of the author of genesis within a couple of verses of themselves?

hinault

robinph wrote: »

So you have no answer for what the source of moonlight is, or for the inconsistencies between the claimed scientific knowledge of the author of genesis within a couple of verses of themselves?

The rabbit hole habit again:D

State specifically the Genesis verse which you are referring to.

Otherwise you're only rabbit holing again.

robinph

hinault wrote: »

robinph wrote: »

So you have no answer for what the source of moonlight is, or for the inconsistencies between the claimed scientific knowledge of the author of genesis within a couple of verses of themselves?

The rabbit hole habit again:D

State specifically the Genesis verse which you are referring to.

Otherwise you're only rabbit holing again.

According to what you posted earlier looks like 16 and 17. Which I'd helpfully quoted back for you.

hinault

robinph wrote: »

According to what you posted earlier looks like 16 and 17. Which I'd helpfully quoted back for you.

Nice try.

State specifically the Genesis verse which you are referring to.

Otherwise you're only rabbit holing again.

robinph

hinault wrote: »

robinph wrote: »

According to what you posted earlier looks like 16 and 17. Which I'd helpfully quoted back for you.

Nice try.

State specifically the Genesis verse which you are referring to.

Otherwise you're only rabbit holing again.

What on earth are you on about? You provided the initial claim and source material regarding the scientific knowledge of the author of genesis. I'm just referring to what you provided and claimed.

hinault

robinph wrote: »

What on earth are you on about? You provided the initial claim and source material regarding the scientific knowledge of the author of genesis. I'm just referring to what you provided and claimed.

You're refusing to state specifically the verse in Genesis that you're referring to.

I've asked you at least twice to cite the verse that you are referring to and you
ignore that question.

So this concludes our exchanges for this site. You're wasting my time.
Ignore list for you.

robinph

Are you actually getting upset because I do not possess a copy of the bible to quote back to you, or are you just unable to click back through the posts on the thread?

robinph

hinault wrote: »

Ignore list for you.

Do I win a prize?

Timberrrrrrrr

hinault wrote: »

You're refusing to state specifically the verse in Genesis that you're referring to.

I've asked you at least twice to cite the verse that you are referring to and you
ignore that question.

So this concludes our exchanges for this site. You're wasting my time.
Ignore list for you.

Surprise surprise :rolleyes:

Cannot answer questions when asked so does his usual go to stunt,

Would love to know how many he has on ignore at this stage because it. Seems.to be most posters in here at one stage or another have caught him out.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Surprise surprise :rolleyes:

Cannot answer questions when asked so does his usual go to stunt,

Would love to know how many he has on ignore at this stage because it. Seems.to be most posters in here at one stage or another have caught him out.

None of you are on my ignore list ... so please read the evidence for God here and respond
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

None of you are on my ignore list ... so please read the evidence for God here and respond
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

A: I wasn't talking about you!

B: There is no evidence for god in the link just one persons opinion on why he believes there is a god.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

A: I wasn't talking about you!

B: There is no evidence for god in the link just one persons opinion on why he believes there is a god.

... an opinion ... based on strong evidence provided at http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

robinph

J C wrote: »

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

A: I wasn't talking about you!

B: There is no evidence for god in the link just one persons opinion on why he believes there is a god.

... an opinion ... based on strong evidence provided at http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

It's still just his opinion from a starting point of "there is a god" he is then looking for a reason to explain why.

Just looking at their first point and it is the "universe is precise" line which hinault was using. But being able to measure things about the universe does not prove God, it just proves that you can measure things. You need something else that shows that only God can create a universe of such dimensions, for then discovering that this universe fits those dimensions to be considered proof of anything for that point. But you'd still need to prove God before that would work.

The existence of a universe is not proof of god.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

... an opinion ... based on strong evidence provided at http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

Still an opinion,

I could post 20 links to people's evidence for evolution and you would say it's all wrongs why should this guys opinion be treated any differently?

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

I don't believe that you are understanding Genesis correctly.
Genesis verses 3-5 state that God created light first
This "light" referred to is Energy. The writer of Genesis appears to understand that for matter to exist, energy must first exist.
Notice too that the writer of Genesis capitalises the words day and night in verse 5. Do Day and Night denote descriptions of what we refer to as day and night? Not necessarily.
Verses 14-16 denote God creating the Sun and divining that time be established as denoted by day and night (both day and night are not capitalised).
But how then can trees and herbs grow as stated in verses 10-13, before the creation of the Sun? That is a very good question. They could have grown as a result of the energy created in verse 3.

A very intetesting take on the Genesis story.

I don't know about the word light actually meaning Energy. To me, light means light. Energy is actually different. Although light is a form of energy, it is only one form. If that were the only issue, you could make an argument, I suppose. But we also have Day and Night, Morning and Evening and the issue of the vegetation, all occurring before the sun was created. I don't really get the relevence of the capitalisation of Day and Night. I think Genesis was written in Hebrew. Were the words capitalised in Hebrew? I don't know.
All of this just demonstrates that the writers had little knowledge of the science of how things work

looksee

J C wrote: »

None of you are on my ignore list ... so please read the evidence for God here and respond
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

There is no evidence there, just opinion. As to the perfect world, if you look at it another way it is because the sun was that distance from the earth and the atmosphere was (eventually became) suitable that life occurred, not the other way round. If the various distances/ events had been slightly different then life could still have occurred - different life, but life nontheless.

Using the bible as 'proof' of anything is also nonsense, it is part of a belief system, which proves nothing.

J C

robinph wrote: »

It's still just his opinion from a starting point of "there is a god" he is then looking for a reason to explain why.

His actual starting point was that 'there is no God' ... he was an Atheist who began to find the evidence around him overwhelmingly pointing to a God-like source for it all ... and eventually he couldn't live with the cognitive dissonance of continuing to hold a belief that was totally at odds with the evidence ... and he became a Christian.

robinph wrote: »

Just looking at their first point and it is the "universe is precise" line which hinault was using. But being able to measure things about the universe does not prove God, it just proves that you can measure things. You need something else that shows that only God can create a universe of such dimensions, for then discovering that this universe fits those dimensions to be considered proof of anything for that point. But you'd still need to prove God before that would work.

The existence of a universe is not proof of god.

The existence of any old Universe proves nothing ... but the existence of our finely tuned, complex, specified, law-driven and perfectly functional Universe declares it's source to be something of God-like scale and capacity.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Still an opinion,

I could post 20 links to people's evidence for evolution and you would say it's all wrongs why should this guys opinion be treated any differently?

Could you provide a link to, lets say 6 things that point to (pondkind to mankind) Evolution being true.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

His actual starting point was that 'there is no God' ... he was an Atheist who began to find the evidence around him overwhelmingly pointing to a God-like source for it all ... and eventually couldn't live with the cognitive dissonance of it all ... and became a Christian.

The existence of any old Universe proves nothing ... but the existence of our finely tuned, complex, specified, law-driven and perfectly functional Universe declares it's source to be something of God-like scale and capacity.

If this universe is so perfectly functional then why is our sun going to blow up one day and destroy this planet?

Why do meteors hit here and wipe a large % of the life out?

antiskeptic

Advbrd wrote: »

You may not want to divulge the details but I for one would be interested in hearing about your encounter.

There isn't much point to be honest - there is nothing particularly spectacular sounding about it that anyone else would take much from it.

As Mr Pudding infers (regarding a comparatively trifling occurrence where I ran out of petrol 7 times and freewheeled up onto a petrol forecourt each time), even apparently spectacular things* can't be expected to have any impact on another. They can be easily written off if one has an interest in doing so.

I'm not being critical here: I myself have heard Christians claiming to having seen limbs miraculously growing back and I dismiss them out of hand because of an a priori viewpoint arrived at as to how God works / the authenticity of these shyster "ministers" on The God Channel. Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence and someone's testimony doesn't quite cut it for me.


The only impressive demonstration of God's existence can be God turning up personally to you. As I've oft said: God (if he exists) is, per definition, capable of demonstrating his existence to someone. And I've never see how "but how did you know it was God?" counters can work



*an atheist mathematician ran the odds and concluded them along the lines of my having won the lotto a couple of times in succession

J C

looksee wrote: »

There is no evidence there, just opinion. As to the perfect world, if you look at it another way it is because the sun was that distance from the earth and the atmosphere was (eventually became) suitable that life occurred, not the other way round. If the various distances/ events had been slightly different then life could still have occurred - different life, but life nontheless.

... and where is the 'different life' on planets with different specifications to the Earth?
Mars was regarded as such a planet ... but no life (of any type) has been detected there.

You are quite entitled to hold it as a matter of dogmatic faith that there is life elsewhere in the Universe ... but there is no objective evidence for such a belief.