The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

looksee

Safehands, JC is a Creation Scientist, as far as I recall. which may seem to be an oxymoron, but they are real, https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/

Nick Park

Leroy42 wrote: »

Genesis 1.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the current english translations are not direct translations of the original text so little point using that as a reference

They are translations from the Hebrew text. And pretty accurate ones. Translating from Hebrew to English is hardly complicated.

Leroy42

Nick Park wrote: »

They are translations from the Hebrew text. And pretty accurate ones. Translating from Hebrew to English is hardly complicated.

Translation from any one language to another is always problematic. Differing use of localised sayings being the first issue. There are many sayings in languages that simply have no literal translation.

Then, with such an old document, context needs also to be taken into account along with the understanding of the target audience.

So whilst simple translation is fairly straightforward, something as complex as the creation of the universe could raise multiple issues. Jesus's true meaning of what he said is so open to interpretation that to claim that the translation was simple would seem to me not valid.

The real point is that many people live their lives based on what is contained in a book which is based on a translation of, at best, second hand recounting of historical events. Yet we are supposed to accept that not only are the overall nature of the events perfectly captured but even down to the exact words that were said

Nick Park

Leroy42 wrote: »

Translation from any one language to another is always problematic. Differing use of localised sayings being the first issue. There are many sayings in languages that simply have no literal translation.

Then, with such an old document, context needs also to be taken into account along with the understanding of the target audience.

So whilst simple translation is fairly straightforward, something as complex as the creation of the universe could raise multiple issues. Jesus's true meaning of what he said is so open to interpretation that to claim that the translation was simple would seem to me not valid.

The real point is that many people live their lives based on what is contained in a book which is based on a translation of, at best, second hand recounting of historical events. Yet we are supposed to accept that not only are the overall nature of the events perfectly captured but even down to the exact words that were said

Translation from one language to another happens all the time. And we accept that translators are able to convey the meaning of a text from one language to another.

For example, we accept that an English translation of Homer accurately conveys the meaning of the Greek. The same goes for thousands of other texts in history. But all of a sudden, when we're discussing the Bible, people start saying,
"Oooh, it's a translation! That means we can't really know what it means!" It's absolute tommyrot, and it would laughed to scorn if it was applied to any other translated text.

Leroy42

Not exactly true though is it, it is not comparing like with like.

Translating Homer, or whatever, is open to interpretation but thats ok as the base document is based on the authors interpretation of a subject and nobody ever uses that single translation as the only evidence of a fact.

People use the bible all the time as the basis for their facts. Jesus said this in Mattheew 21:7 or whatever.

Not even remotely the same

Nick Park

Leroy42 wrote: »

Not exactly true though is it, it is not comparing like with like.

Translating Homer, or whatever, is open to interpretation but thats ok as the base document is based on the authors interpretation of a subject and nobody ever uses that single translation as the only evidence of a fact.

People use the bible all the time as the basis for their facts. Jesus said this in Mattheew 21:7 or whatever.

Not even remotely the same

In translation terms it is exactly true.

The use people make of a text might differ, but the principles of translation remain the same whether we are talking about a Gospel, a play, or a shopping list. If we couldn't rely on translations from one language to another being accurate then we would have no history, very little science, no international treaties etc.

The idea that a text must be dubious because it has been translated from one language to another is bunk. And, since JC's ideas are open to criticism on so many other levels, it is a pointless and illogical distraction to make an issue out of something being a translation.

If you think you know enough Hebrew to argue that JC's translation is wrong then go ahead and knock yourself out in pointing out what mistakes he has made. My Hebrew is pretty rusty these days, but his translation looks pretty good to me.

J C

looksee wrote: »

Safehands, JC is a Creation Scientist, as far as I recall. which may seem to be an oxymoron, but they are real, https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/

Thanks looksee, for the clarification.
Yes, we are real conventionally qualified scientists ... some working full time applying the scientific method to studying different aspects of Creation and the Flood ... and others working as conventional scientists, but pursuing Creation Science in their spare time.

J C

Safehands wrote: »

It really bothers me when creationsists just make things up when facts don't suit the story. But that is what happens all the time.
According to the tale, the sun was created on the forth day, as you say.
You call yourself a scientist JC. I have no doubt whatsoever that you are a very intelligent person. So you know fine well that it is not possible for normal 24 hour days to occur without the sun. So I ask, are you just writing nonsensical stuff like this just to stir things up a bit?

Why can normal 24 hour days not occur ... when there is a source of light energy and a rotating Earth?

It is thought that God created the Sun later than the Earth and plant life to show that the Sun should not be regarded as superior ... and to help avoid Sun worship cults.

indioblack

If we are simply here - if we are only the result of billions of years of physical processes, then the indifference of the universe to our small existence can be understood. There is neither cruelty nor love in the mechanical actions of the world, or in the natural activities of living things - except as we perceive and describe them.
With the addition of a deity, [with the attributes of the Christian god], there is something else to be included.
Motivation.
Reasons why, reasons for - and motivation in respect of the reality of the world as we experience it.

Leroy42

So you think people only do good things because of God?

indioblack

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you think people only do good things because of God?

I'm thinking that if the Christian god is included in an attempt to understand creation, existence - then it would be reasonable to expect motivation.
And explanation.
My initial response to your question, [I assumed it was directed at me], would be, "does god exist? and "define god" - as I've posted on several threads, if a deity exists it may not be one we might want to exist.

J C

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you think people only do good things because of God?

People only exist because of God.:)

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you think people only do good things because of God?

If conscience / empathy / courage are attributes assigned us by God then then add human will, then good would be a combination of what God has done and what we will to do with what he has done.

antiskeptic

indioblack wrote: »

I'm thinking that if the Christian god is included in an attempt to understand creation, existence - then it would be reasonable to expect motivation.

One motivation appears to be that God wanted kids. That's what he intended and that's what he will end up with, in any case.

You might consider our and his current trials as a pregancy of sorts: painful, messy but ultimately leading to the greatest of joys.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

"god" only exist because of people.:)

FYP

Safehands

J C wrote: »

Why can normal 24 hour days not occur ... when there is a source of light energy and a rotating Earth?

Are you really asking this question JC? First of all, as far as I know, Genesis does not mention "energy", so let's not just throw it in there as if it is clearly written that energy caused the light.
I'm not going to try and speculate about what is meant by "light", because the whole thing is clearly just made up. It is a fairy tale which you happen to believe, so I suppose you can add to it as you go along, just like I do with my kids.

J C wrote: »

It is thought that God created the Sun later than the Earth and plant life to show that the Sun should not be regarded as superior ... and to help avoid Sun worship cults.

Thought by who?
Plant life can't exist without the sun, Full Stop! (See reference to fairy tale above)

Delirium

MOD NOTE

It would be appreciated if Christian beliefs were not referred to as 'fairy tales'.

Thanks for your attention.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

FYP

People only exist because of God.:)

Various 'demi-gods' are the work of Human imagination ... but the God of the Bible can be verified to exist ... by the things that He has made.

J C

Safehands wrote: »

Are you really asking this question JC? First of all, as far as I know, Genesis does not mention "energy", so let's not just throw it in there as if it is clearly written that energy caused the light.
I'm not going to try and speculate about what is meant by "light", because the whole thing is clearly just made up. It is a fairy tale which you happen to believe, so I suppose you can add to it as you go along, just like I do with my kids.

... unlike the fairytales you tell your children, Genesis doesn't claim to be a fairytale ... and it is as scientifically valid an account of Creation ... as the equally unproven (and far less plausible) alternative account ... that nothing spontaneously blew up to produce everything.:)

Safehands wrote: »

Plant life can't exist without the sun, Full Stop! (See reference to fairy tale above)

It was only for a 24 hour day anyway ... and plant life can thrive once there is a source of light and heat ... it doesn't require sunlight ... as any policeman who has ever raided a cannabis 'grow house' can confirm!!!

indioblack

antiskeptic wrote: »

One motivation appears to be that God wanted kids. That's what he intended and that's what he will end up with, in any case.

You might consider our and his current trials as a pregancy of sorts: painful, messy but ultimately leading to the greatest of joys.

There is a school of thought that has god wanting us to be like him - children can be expected to grow up similar to their parents.
After motivation you have method, action. You describe it as painful and messy.
In the Christian tradition there would also be casualties.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

People only exist because of God.:)

Various 'demi-gods' are the work of Human imagination ... but the God of the Bible can be verified to exist ... by the things that He has made.

And many other religions would say the same about their "gods"

You choose to believe that your "god" can be verified to exist because that's the particular "god" that you personally believe In.

Safehands

J C wrote: »

... unlike the fairytales you tell your children, Genesis doesn't claim to be a fairytale ... and it is as scientifically valid an account of Creation ... as the equally unproven (and far less plausible) alternative account ... that nothing spontaneously blew up to produce everything.:)

Very scientifically incorrect of you JC. There is scientific evidence of how night and day occurs, and that does not concur with the biblical account. No scientific claim ever suggested that nothing blew up. Hard to be accurate about events that happened over 14 billion years ago.

J C wrote: »

was only for a 24 hour day anyway ... and plant life can thrive once there is a source of light and heat ... it doesn't require sunlight ... as any policeman who has ever raided a cannabis 'grow house' can confirm!!!

There would have been no heat. The sun was not around. Ever been in a deep freeze at minus 30? try growing plants at that temperature. Pluto has a temperature of less than minus 200 deg C, and it is heated by the sun. So without the sun it is reasonable to suppose that the temperature on the Earth would have been at least at a similar -200C. Cannabis or any other plant would never thrive at that temperature. So the account is just... not true, sorry!

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And many other religions would say the same about their "gods"

You choose to believe that your "god" can be verified to exist because that's the particular "god" that you personally believe In.

... we can verify that an intelligence of God-like proportions created life ... and no other 'god' is claimed (by their followers) to have done this.

J C

Safehands wrote: »

Very scientifically incorrect of you JC. There is scientific evidence of how night and day occurs, and that does not concur with the biblical account. No scientific claim ever suggested that nothing blew up. Hard to be accurate about events that happened over 14 billion years ago.

... equally hard to be plausible about what supposedly happened 14 billion years ago, as well !!!:)

Safehands wrote: »

There would have been no heat. The sun was not around. Ever been in a deep freeze at minus 30? try growing plants at that temperature. Pluto has a temperature of less than minus 200 deg C, and it is heated by the sun. So without the sun it is reasonable to suppose that the temperature on the Earth would have been at least at a similar -200C. Cannabis or any other plant would never thrive at that temperature. So the account is just... not true, sorry!

There would have been plenty of heat ... the Earth and its atmosphere had just been created 48 hours earlier ... and it wouldn't have had the time to cool down to minus anything (and would be insulated by the atmosphere)!!!

Safehands

J C wrote: »

... equally hard to be plausible about what supposedly happened 14 billion years ago, as well !!!:)

Agreed, but we know the sun causes day and night. Nothing else.

J C wrote: »

There would have been plenty of heat ... the Earth and its atmosphere had just been created 48 hours earlier ... and it wouldn't have had the time to cool down to minus anything (and would be insulated by the atmosphere)!!!

Ah yes, if you believe the scientific account there would be heat. And it wouldn't dissipate in 24 hours.
But we are not talking about the scientific account. We are talking Genesis, and no mention of heat from creation. "So the earth produced all kinds of plants, and God was pleased with what he saw. Evening passed and morning came—that was the third day." What? evening and morning?
I wonder was there a bright sunrise that day?

J C

Safehands wrote: »

Agreed, but we know the sun causes day and night. Nothing else.

Quite true about every day since the fourth day.
Before the fourth day, a source of light and a rotating Earth is all that was needed for day and night.

Safehands wrote: »

Ah yes, if you believe the scientific account there would be heat. And it wouldn't dissipate in 24 hours.
But we are not talking about the scientific account. We are talking Genesis, and no mention of heat from creation. "So the earth produced all kinds of plants, and God was pleased with what he saw. Evening passed and morning came—that was the third day." What? evening and morning?
I wonder was there a bright sunrise that day?

The bright sunrise ... was on the fourth day.:)

looksee

J C wrote: »

There would have been plenty of heat ... the Earth and its atmosphere had just been created 48 hours earlier ... and it wouldn't have had the time to cool down to minus anything (and would be insulated by the atmosphere)!!!

Why are you suggesting there was any heat - it wouldn't have been residual heat from the big bang, would it?

Safehands

J C wrote: »

Quite true about every day since the fourth day.
Before the fourth day, a source of light and a rotating Earth is all that was needed for day and night.


The bright sunrise ... was on the fourth day.:)

Do you agree that this all happened billions of years ago?

J C

looksee wrote: »

Why are you suggesting there was any heat - it wouldn't have been residual heat from the big bang, would it?

No ... it was residual to the creation of the Earth.

J C

Safehands wrote: »

Do you agree that this all happened billions of years ago?

No.