If extra terrestrial life was discovered

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I've explained my position on Genesis very clearly on boards.ie before. I've given justification from the passage in those posts to suggest that 'yom' in the Hebrew in that passage can be used to refer to a longer period of time. Given the poetic structure of Genesis 1 and 2 this holds a lot of water:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78454413
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78457196

Perhaps I should put those in my signature so that people can more easily access them.

So on what day/yom did God create the Earth?

philologos

koth wrote: »

So on what day/yom did God create the Earth?

It was created already before the days / yom began. See the first verse of Genesis 1.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

It was created already before the days / yom began. See the first verse of Genesis 1.

So how exactly does the "Holy Spirit move across the face of the waters", when water has yet to be created?

gbee

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps I should put those in my signature so that people can more easily access them.

Yes, in fact put the bible in your in your sig too, that'd be great.

[Heee, heheee I've sigs turned off haaaaaaaa]

Ellis Dee

Sky Fairy calling Philologos, Sky Fairy calling Philologos. Come in Philologos. Return to base at once. The atheists have deployed their ultimate weapon - reason - and the only thing you can do is retreat.

philologos

koth wrote: »

So how exactly does the "Holy Spirit move across the face of the waters", when water has yet to be created?

That's also not true. If you look at verses 6 through 9 you'll see nowhere that water was created. The water seems to have been there after the formless void earth was created in the passage.

I think you should actually consider what the Bible says before you criticise it. It's just lazy argumentation otherwise.

I consider Genesis as a description of God's glory in creation, not as a technical manual as to the specifics of how things were formed.

gbee

philologos wrote: »

I consider Genesis as a description of God's glory in creation, not as a technical manual as to the specifics of how things were formed.

Glad you agree. It's total rubbish tbh.

Delirium

and what about verse two, the one you ignored?

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

I've explained my position on Genesis very clearly on boards.ie before. I've given justification from the passage in those posts to suggest that 'yom' in the Hebrew in that passage can be used to refer to a longer period of time. Given the poetic structure of Genesis 1 and 2 this holds a lot of water:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78454413
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78457196

Perhaps I should put those in my signature so that people can more easily access them.

But you did not explain why Genesis claims that Birds and whales came before land animals.
Why does it claim this?
What is the poetic meaning?

kylith

Or perhaps you could explain how man was created after all the other animals (Gen 1:24-27) and also before all the other animals (Gen 2:18-20). In chapter 1 he quite clearly creates all the animals, then man, then in Chapter 2 he worries that man is lonely and so creates all the animals, again.

robindch

What I'd like to know is how god could create light (verse 3, day 1) before he created anything that produced light (sun + stars, verse 14, day 4).

endacl

I'd love to hear how he wrote the bible before creating the pen...

Liamario

Unless philologos has proof that the stories in the bible are true; to use it to support your point of view is about as relevant as using Harry Potter to support the existence of magic.

kiffer

So God created everything except water which existed before creation...
So there's a ttimeless void and a god and lots of water...
So God is Cthuluh?
And he drives you mad so you believe that you are worthless and that you deserve to be punished right from birth because you are inherently flawed because your ancestors ate a fruit that he told them not to...
And this thread is meant to be about aliens and religious people so I think that neatly brings us back to Cthuluh.

Frankly I think the aliens can't get here quickly enough... also can't travel quickly enough to get here but that's an aside.
Once they are here we'll hear their crazy religions and think that the earth ones are sane in comparison and all convert to Islam...

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

But you did not explain why Genesis claims that Birds and whales came before land animals.
Why does it claim this?
What is the poetic meaning?

I've already explained (and if you look to those links I explain even more) how there is a symmetry between the first three days of creation and the last three in the passage. The Genesis account isn't a technical account of how exactly everything came to be. It's an account which points to the sovereignty of God and the power of God behind creation.

I'm not going to defend a view of Genesis 1 that I don't hold.

philologos

koth wrote: »

and what about verse two, the one you ignored?

Please actually read what I've already said say first. It doesn't say that water was created after that verse.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

What I'd like to know is how god could create light (verse 3, day 1) before he created anything that produced light (sun + stars, verse 14, day 4).

This is why the symmetry approach to the Genesis 1 passage holds more water. Day 1 and day 4 map. 2 and 5, 3 and 6.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

Robindch wrote:

What I'd like to know is how god could create light (verse 3, day 1) before he created anything that produced light (sun + stars, verse 14, day 4).

This is why the symmetry approach to the Genesis 1 passage holds more water. Day 1 and day 4 map. 2 and 5, 3 and 6.

So, the reason the bible says there's light before there's something to make the light is because "symmetry" "holds more water"?

ShooterSF

I invented the wheel.

There are a few different ways to deal with that sentence; Point out that I'm a big fat liar and didn't invent the wheel because clearly it existed before me, put your fingers in your ears and shout "lalalalala I can't hear you" while claiming it's true or re-imagining what I "meant", either I invented the "specific" wheel I just made or, if I never even bothered to go that far into the lie, you could say I was actually a reincarnate of the inventor of the wheel and therefore not wrong. Or you can just go with mistranslation, metaphor context etc. The first option still seems the least silly.

robindch

^^^ Well, your wheel is probably symmetrical. Not sure if it "holds more water" though.

Perhaps it's an imaginary theological wheel, in which case, you can spin it wherever you want, for as long as you want. Hell, you won't even need a surface to roll it over.

philologos

ShooterSF wrote: »

I invented the wheel.

There are a few different ways to deal with that sentence; Point out that I'm a big fat liar and didn't invent the wheel because clearly it existed before me, put your fingers in your ears and shout "lalalalala I can't hear you" while claiming it's true or re-imagining what I "meant", either I invented the "specific" wheel I just made or, if I never even bothered to go that far into the lie, you could say I was actually a reincarnate of the inventor of the wheel and therefore not wrong. Or you can just go with mistranslation, metaphor context etc. The first option still seems the least silly.

In all seriousness what do you want me to do? Lie and claim I believe something else to keep you happy or to reassure you that I'm an idiot?

The position I hold has been held by many Christians since Christ. If you had a real objection and were interested to give my views a fair hearing it might be worthwhile. If not it's honestly not worth it.

gbee

philologos wrote: »

In all seriousness what do you want me to do? Lie and claim I believe something else to keep you happy or to reassure you that I'm an idiot?

The position I hold has been held by many Christians since Christ. If you had a real objection and were interested to give my views a fair hearing it might be worthwhile. If not it's honestly not worth it.

You should read this back to yourself whilst looking in the mirror.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

The position I hold has been held by many Christians since Christ.

And many of them believed the world was flat.

Seriously, phil, things aren't just true because lots of peeps find them comforting.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

And many of them believed the world was flat.

Seriously, phil, things aren't just true because lots of peeps find them comforting.

I agree they aren't. I've always agreed with that position. I've never argued that once on this forum. Certainly not in living memory.

I find that Christianity makes logical sense of the world where atheism simply doesn't. It's normal and expected for people to look around them and evaluate what makes the most logical sense.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

It's normal and expected for people to look around them and evaluate what makes the most logical sense.

As above somewhere, if you think it makes sense that a deity would manifest as a first century rabbi who needed to have himself nailed to a tree and die so that he could allow himself to forgive a distant ancestor for a crime he knew in advance would be committed, then I think it would be fair to say that you have a different understanding of logic than I do.

Ellis Dee

philologos wrote: »

Please actually read what I've already said say first. It doesn't say that water was created after that verse.

Meh! Just because it is written in a book of extremely dubious provenance ---



If anyone is interested in the REAL universe - as opposed to the claptrap stories in the Bible - it has just been announced that astronomers have discovered an object that is 13.3 billion light years away. That makes it at least 13.3 billion years old, which renders Philoloco's three days here or three days there pretty inconsequential. The galaxy may well have been home to creatures and thousands, perhaps millions, of civilisation that lasted for billions of years, reached a stage of development that we could never imagine, and yet disappeared when their home galaxy died billions of years ago. Isn't that thought pretty awesome in comparison with the biblical tales about primitive goat-herders in the Middle East?

http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1217/

Bloodwing

philologos wrote: »

I find that Christianity makes logical sense of the world where atheism simply doesn't. It's normal and expected for people to look around them and evaluate what makes the most logical sense.

I'm sorry Phil but if there's one thing that religion lacks it's logical sense. It is entirely illogical to look at something we don't fully understand and decide it's the work of a supernatural being when the only reason to believe it is an ancient text.

Logic is looking at something we don't understand and trying to figure it out based on the evidence before us, somethings we'll never understand but it still doesn't make it logical to attribute it to a deity without primary evidence.

gbee

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Well, your wheel is probably symmetrical. Not sure if it "holds more water" though. .

Erm, hand rises timidly, what if it's a water wheel?

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Please actually read what I've already said say first. It doesn't say that water was created after that verse.

Good. So water was created on Earth before the sun or any other stars existed. AFAIK there isn't any theory that suggests that water appeared on Earth before the sun existed.

Especially as the Earth was created as a after effect of the creation of the sun, or at least that's my understanding of it. How do you explain the Bible getting it so wrong?

gbee

koth wrote: »

How do you explain the Bible getting it so wrong?

I can help him out here actually, what he doesn't know is the Bible actually fell in the water and the pretty pictures were actually text that got washed away.