The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

systemsready · 09-10-2012 03:45PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If he existed, he could have told us. Or he could have implanted the story in our brains. The god you postulate seems a bit impotent, or at least not very smart.

But you have heard the story and still you don't believe! LOL

systemsready · 09-10-2012 03:47PM

Gumbi wrote: »

Where are the dinosaurs now, by the way?

You mean the 'bones' of the 'dinosaurs'?

Lantus · 09-10-2012 03:48PM

systemsready wrote: »

If the earth was going to be destroyed by a comet or something in 50 years, and man had the capacity to travel in space to another planet that could support human life, (but on that planet were no animals or edible fruits etc, just fertile soil, air, and water and sunlight, HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION!) Don't you think we would take as many creatures with us as possible, in pairs, and that we would make a means to transport these creatures in safety and release them on the new land?

Why do we think that ancient man was unable to think like that?

And dont say ancient man hadn't the means. Humans today would find it difficult to build the pyramids.

The idea that taking 2 of every animal is a workable solution is poor. In nature animals exist in groups of varying sizes in a state of ' changing balance' herd animals need large groups to protect against predators for example. The idea that you can release 2 lions and 2 gazelles into wild and simply hope for the best is just utter maddess.

The idea that you can cram an entire planets worth of animals onto a small boat for a year and at the end expect them all to be alive let alone in good health putting aside illness and disease and natural death and then expect them all to just wonder out and re-populate the entire planet is unsane.

The idea that only 8 people who had no experience or knowledge of capturing, maintaining or looking after animals or vetinary skills could accomplish this is equally unsane.

systemsready wrote: »

If he started everything over again without using Noah, how would we know about it. We would have no narration of the story from father to son.
The whole purpose of the flood was to clean the earth of corruption and start again with the non corrupted believers-Noah and family. We know about the wrath of God and we know that we must be like Noah in order to be spared the wrath. Thats why.

The idea that an all loving god wiped out all human life including pregnant women and unborn children, babies, young kids, men, women and the elderly is quite sickening not to mention highly contradictory.

Perhaps he didn't have the knowledge or patience to be able to educate them and encourage positive natural change.

systemsready · 09-10-2012 03:48PM

shizz wrote: »

How would we know about it? Oh I dunno, he could tell us all at once by appearing to everyone. "ok guys the last time I made you all I ****ed up bad. So here is what you shouldnt do so i don't go all hulk again. Basically don't be a dick. Oh no wait I wasn't supposed to tell you that until the new testemant."

So he cleaned the Earth of corruption? That went well didn't it? He should pop along again sometime soon to start over again at this rate.

It's nice of him to create me just so he can put his "wrath" upon me. Sadist.

Mankind bring the wrath of God on themselves

Gumbi · 09-10-2012 03:51PM

systemsready wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

Where are the dinosaurs now, by the way?

You mean the 'bones' of the 'dinosaurs'?

Where have they disappeared to in the last 6000 years? All we have are bones. How did they die off, according to you?

shizz · 09-10-2012 03:58PM

systemsready wrote: »

shizz wrote: »

How would we know about it? Oh I dunno, he could tell us all at once by appearing to everyone. "ok guys the last time I made you all I ****ed up bad. So here is what you shouldnt do so i don't go all hulk again. Basically don't be a dick. Oh no wait I wasn't supposed to tell you that until the new testemant."

So he cleaned the Earth of corruption? That went well didn't it? He should pop along again sometime soon to start over again at this rate.

It's nice of him to create me just so he can put his "wrath" upon me. Sadist.

Mankind bring the wrath of God on themselves

God made me. God is all knowing. I cant remember the term but he knows what will eventually happen due to this. He knows how I will turn out before he made me. He made me this way. He made me to go against what he wants. Therefore he created me to be punished for his own gratification. Sadist.

systemsready · 09-10-2012 03:58PM

Gumbi wrote: »

Where have they disappeared to in the last 6000 years? All we have are bones. How did they die off, according to you?

In the Great Flood? They were some of the creatures not chosen for the Ark?

systemsready · 09-10-2012 04:01PM

shizz wrote: »

God made me. God is all knowing. I cant remember the term but he knows what will eventually happen due to this. He knows how I will turn out before he made me. He made me this way. He made me to go against what he wants. Therefore he created me to be punished for his own gratification. Sadist.

You still have a chance to repent..you are still breathing I presume? Why don't you repent? Because something is stopping you, and its not God stopping you...so what is it? Therefore its you choosing not to know God. or its you choosing to listen to negativity (Satan). God is there and all we have to do is call on Him.

Gumbi · 09-10-2012 04:47PM

systemsready wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

Where have they disappeared to in the last 6000 years? All we have are bones. How did they die off, according to you?

In the Great Flood? They were some of the creatures not chosen for the Ark?

How do you know that? Was their a criteria for selection? And how do you know THAT?

Benny_Cake · 09-10-2012 05:01PM

systemsready wrote: »

In the Great Flood? They were some of the creatures not chosen for the Ark?

I wasn't aware there was a selection process?! From Genesis:

But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. 21 As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them.” 22 Thus Noah did; according to all that God had commanded him, so he did.

It seems to me that you are employing considerable mental gymnastics so that you can believe that the flood narrative in Genesis is factual history. It simply cannot be the case. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't truth and meaning in the story. If your faith is dependent on a Bronze Age man having constructed a vessel of such size that it could hold representatives of every animal species on the face of the planet, complete with food (and toilet facilities - then you are putting your faith on foundations of sand. Luckily you are not required to do this to be a Christian.

Jimmy444 · 09-10-2012 05:41PM

Obliq wrote: »

On bbc3 now! Creationism; Conspiracy road trip - with Andrew Maxwell and a bunch of British creationists........tune in, should be *ahem* ....invigorating.

I thought the funniest bit was when they were about to go into a Christian church and the cagey Northern Ireland guy went up to one of the locals and coyly said "Do you mind me asking, I this by any chance a gay church?" ! What’s a gay church? I had visions of Kenny Everett and his huge hands delivering the sermon, Liberace on the organ (oops!) , Freddy Mercury helping out on the altar. . . .

Monty Burnz · 09-10-2012 06:07PM

systemsready wrote: »

Mankind bring the wrath of God on themselves

Why didn't he make people he didn't have to murder periodically?

shizz · 09-10-2012 06:11PM

systemsready wrote: »

You still have a chance to repent..you are still breathing I presume? Why don't you repent? Because something is stopping you, and its not God stopping you...so what is it? Therefore its you choosing not to know God. or its you choosing to listen to negativity (Satan). God is there and all we have to do is call on Him.

Repent for what? Not believing in a man who hasn't given me a reason to believe in him in the first place?

What a ridiculous rule. I mean really!? Even if you do believe in this God how could any body honestly like him and worship him?

It's not faith, its being afraid.

AtomicHorror · 09-10-2012 07:15PM

systemsready wrote: »

Ok, so you are saying that the flood waters were fresh water? where did all that fresh water come from?
They say it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, where does rain come from?
Its just water recycled from already existing water on earth, whether its stored in ice or is in rivers lakes and seas. The volume of water on the earth doesn't change. How could it? Does water multiply?
If it rained for 40 days and 40 nights or more then that rain came from already existing water from earth. Water that was salty, the salt remained on the sea and the freshwater rain fell back to the sea and resalted itself. The flood waters receded by the earth swallowing it all up

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/2010/gallery/global-water-volume.html

The waters of the great flood came from a combination of deep caverns and from rain. See Genesis 7, verses 11 and 12. The volume was sufficient to cover the Earth to a depth about 15-20 meters above the tops of the highest mountains. That's a global water depth increase of nearly 9 kilometers, equivalent to a volume of something like 4 billion cubic kilometers of water. This is based on Genesis 7, verses 19 and 20.

This would mean that fresh water normally bound up in ice and suspended in clouds was deposited as liquid on the Earth's surface. Normally these would exist in a reasonably stable equilibrium. In this sort of flood, the volume of liquid water on the surface would be approximately tripled. The result would be a global ocean with a salt concentration 33% of normal sea water. That would be a huge salt concentration increase for freshwater species, and a massive decrease for saltwater species.

The biggest problem is that total volume. There is only 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water on Earth, including clouds and ice. The Genesis account requires there be 5.5 billion, which is why most creationists (but for some reason not you) concede that such water would have to have originated from outside Earth. They usually cite the waters that God placed above the firmament in Genesis 1:7. This water was presumably either returned to space or receded underground after the flood, since it's clearly not around anymore.

AtomicHorror · 09-10-2012 07:19PM

systemsready wrote: »

In the Great Flood? They were some of the creatures not chosen for the Ark?

You really need to brush up on your scripture if you're going to go down this path.

Genesis 6:19 wrote:

And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

J C · 10-10-2012 08:32AM

Gumbi wrote: »

"Atheist religion". Oh JC. I take these little comments as humour, for the sake of my sanity.

It is a fully fledged religion ... with its very own 'high-priests', congregations of 'acolytes', 'holy books', 'saints' and 'heretics'!!!

... and a fair smattering of unfounded dogmas and articles of faith ... that its members recite whenever their faith (in the power of muck to spontaneously evolve itself into Man) is challenged.:)

systemsready · 10-10-2012 09:51AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The waters of the great flood came from a combination of deep caverns and from rain. See Genesis 7, verses 11 and 12. The volume was sufficient to cover the Earth to a depth about 15-20 meters above the tops of the highest mountains. That's a global water depth increase of nearly 9 kilometers, equivalent to a volume of something like 4 billion cubic kilometers of water. This is based on Genesis 7, verses 19 and 20.

This would mean that fresh water normally bound up in ice and suspended in clouds was deposited as liquid on the Earth's surface. Normally these would exist in a reasonably stable equilibrium. In this sort of flood, the volume of liquid water on the surface would be approximately tripled. The result would be a global ocean with a salt concentration 33% of normal sea water. That would be a huge salt concentration increase for freshwater species, and a massive decrease for saltwater species.

The biggest problem is that total volume. There is only 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water on Earth, including clouds and ice. The Genesis account requires there be 5.5 billion, which is why most creationists (but for some reason not you) concede that such water would have to have originated from outside Earth. They usually cite the waters that God placed above the firmament in Genesis 1:7. This water was presumably either returned to space or receded underground after the flood, since it's clearly not around anymore.

Personally I would agree with the receding underground theory, and probably burning itself away when the molten lava touched it.
Details are not what matters here.
Because as you know..."The devil is in the detail". If you have a belief that is the foundation of your entire being, and you trust the messengers (prophets) of that belief. Then if a non believer comes and tells you that what happened is an impossibility (their opinion only) . Then you look at what you have as a believer, and you also look at what the unbeliever has, and you compare, you say to yourself, If I 'trust' the so called evidence of today (which may change in the future) and abandon those Prophets who have shown me the bigger picture, what will I become? A lump of meaningless flesh on the earth!

systemsready · 10-10-2012 09:52AM

J C wrote: »

It is a fully fledged religion ... with its very own 'high-priests', congregations of 'acolytes', 'holy books', 'saints' and 'heretics'!!!

... and a fair smattering of unfounded dogmas and articles of faith ... that its members recite whenever their faith (in the power of muck to spontaneously evolve itself into Man) is challenged.:)

Good post!

systemsready · 10-10-2012 09:54AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You really need to brush up on your scripture if you're going to go down this path.

Changes nothing...so the dinosaurs had already died by then..by some other means. How did the Dodo die out? Same ****, different day.

Peregrinus · 10-10-2012 09:57AM

systemsready wrote: »

Changes nothing...so the dinosaurs had already died by then..by some other means. How did the Dodo die out? Same ****, different day.

But it does indicate that Noah was instructed to bring a pair of whales into the ark, doesn't it? I mean, "every living thing" surely includes whales, no?

systemsready · 10-10-2012 10:06AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why didn't he make people he didn't have to murder periodically?

Then what would be the purpose of Creation?

systemsready · 10-10-2012 10:08AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it does indicate that Noah was instructed to bring a pair of whales into the ark, doesn't it? I mean, "every living thing" surely includes whales, no?

You mean all the sharks and other fish , and the jelly fish? and shrimp, mackeral? Conger eels??
Why? wouldnt they be better off in the water?
And the ducks? What about the ducks?
By the way...salmon can live in fresh and salt water. Therefore so could many other fish.

Peregrinus · 10-10-2012 10:38AM

systemsready wrote: »

You mean all the sharks and other fish , and the jelly fish? and shrimp, mackeral? Conger eels??
Why? wouldnt they be better off in the water?
And the ducks?

God said that a pair of each was to be taken into the ark. Genesis 6:19 is unambigous about this.

If we take Genesis as an exact and faithful account, then God told Noah to bring two whales (and two of every kind of fish, etc) into the ark. Maybe they would have been better off in the water (or maybe not, given the points already made about salinity, sedimentation, etc) but who are we to question the inscrutable commandments of God?

If, on the other hand, we don't take Genesis as an exact and faithful account, then we have no reason to be sure that there was a flood at all.

systemsready · 10-10-2012 10:45AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

God said that a pair of each was to be taken into the ark. Genesis 6:19 is unambigous about this.

If we take Genesis as an exact and faithful account, then God told Noah to bring two whales (and two of every kind of fish, etc) into the ark. Maybe they would have been better off in the water (or maybe not, given the points already made about salinity, sedimentation, etc) but who are we to question the inscrutable commandments of God?

If, on the other hand, we don't take Genesis as an exact and faithful account, then we have no reason to be sure that there was a flood at all.

I never said that the Bible in English that exists today is an exact correct translation of the original story. It could be a bad translation, you don't know and will never know what the original account was word for word. I'm 100% sure it happened, however we are hearing it second hand, and devising opinions based on that. The Account relayed to Moses from whomever relayed it to him, would be a factual account 100% believable.
Look, 9/11 only happened 10 years ago and already people are casting doubts about the details of what exactly took place. However we do know that 2 planes hit 2 buildings . Thats indisputable.

Lelantos · 10-10-2012 10:45AM

J C wrote: »

Temptamperu wrote: »

So if you believe the creationist myth that would mean you believe the world and universe to be 6000 years old, and was created in a puff of smoke.
If this is so, how has the light from the stars reached us considering the distance to us?
Perhaps Alpha Centuri which is about 4.21 light years away may of reached us but just about.
Also if we are all related to each other how come there arent so many more deformations due to incest and how can you explain the different races of men?

... and we're off again for the nth time!!!

... you seriously do need to do a crash course in Creation Science.

The age of the universe is about 13.75 billion Evolutionist years, but the diameter of the observable universe is estimated to be about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years).
Creation Scientists believe that the initial expansion of the Universe (which happened instantaneously) was even greater than the Evolutionist Big Bang initial expansion, that supposedly produced a Universe with a Diameter of 93 billion light years in 13.75 billion years.
Instantantaneous expansion also 'stretched' the light from the stars and the speed of light therefore wasn't a constraint at the moment of Creation.

Humans were originally created perfect, so marriage between close relatives didn't create difficulties at that time. This is no longer the case, due to our ever increasing mutation load ... but equally, genetic masking rapidly eliminates the expression risk of deleterious mutations above background levels, with consanguinity beyond the fourth degree.

There is only one race of Mankind ... the Human Race ... but what are popularly called 'races' are due to genetic isolation and local selection effects after the Babel Dispersal.

Lmao! Oh lovely, thank you,best laugh I have had this week so far, and to think there are thousands of deluded people who actually believe this just shows that evolution is a thing of beauty....and some insanity.

Peregrinus · 10-10-2012 11:13AM

systemsready wrote: »

I never said that the Bible in English that exists today is an exact correct translation of the original story. It could be a bad translation, you don't know and will never know what the original account was word for word. I'm 100% sure it happened, however we are hearing it second hand, and devising opinions based on that. The Account relayed to Moses from whomever relayed it to him, would be a factual account 100% believable.
Look, 9/11 only happened 10 years ago and already people are casting doubts about the details of what exactly took place. However we do know that 2 planes hit 2 buildings . Thats indisputable.

You disappoint me, systemsready.

There is no claim anywhere in Genesis that Moses wrote Genesis, or in particular that he wrote the account of the flood. There are claims elsewhere in scripture that he wrote various things, but neither Genesis nor the flood are ever specified.

Moreover if we take it on the basis of these claims that he did write the account of the flood, then we must dismiss the possiblity that he wrote down something he heard at second hand from an unreliable witness. We are told in, e.g., Ex 24:4 that Moses wrote what he was told to be God, and that he wrote down "all the words of the Lord", not what he heard from some bloke who had it from someone whose cousin swears he was there at the time, or shortly afterwards.

It seems to me, systemsready, that you've decided to be a biblical literalist, except when you don't want to be, and when you don't want to be you assume - entirely without scriptural warrant - more or less arbitrary things that it suits you to assume.

You really don't need to insist that there were no whales in the ark. Given the colossal volume of creatures that you accept were in the ark, two whales wouldn't actually be much of a stretch. And we've already seen that, if the flood really did unfold as creationists insist, there would have been good reasons for including whales and other acquatic creatures in the ark; they couldn't have survived outside it.

So why do you suddenly decide that, oh well, this particular verse of genesis is human error and unreliable? As far as I can see, purely to bolster your own self-esteem. You mocked the scientist who asked the question "how did the whales fit into the ark?", despite the fact that both fidelity to scripture and the "teachings" of "creation science" compel the conclusion that, yes, there must have been whales in the ark. And rather than admit that you might have been a bit too much of a smart-arse in mocking that, you've effectively abandoned your position that divinely-inspired scripture must be read as exact and faithful history.

Honestly, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Which, no doubt, was a popular pastime during the long wet evenings on the ark.

Gumbi · 10-10-2012 11:30AM

J C wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

"Atheist religion". Oh JC. I take these little comments as humour, for the sake of my sanity.

It is a fully fledged religion ... with its very own 'high-priests', congregations of 'acolytes', 'holy books', 'saints' and 'heretics'!!!

... and a fair smattering of unfounded dogmas and articles of faith ... that its members recite whenever their faith (in the power of muck to spontaneously evolve itself into Man) is challenged.:)

That's so sad that you think that. So sad.

Do I have a holy book? I don't have priests. Neither are there heretics. Name an article of faith to which I adhere in response to challenges.

systemsready · 10-10-2012 11:53AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

You disappoint me, systemsready.

I'm not here to either disappoint or please or satisfy you in any way Peregrinus.
I'm simply stating what things look like from my point of view.
I do indeed say that the translation of texts from ancient languages and finally into English will always carry some slight suspicion that it may not be completely accurate. That's an allowance I always give to people who argue against scripture. However, what we have now is what we have to work on. The bible tells us a story about Noah and the Ark. The bible also tells us many many other things, the many ones that I have investigated personally have proved true in my own estimation. I don't care much about how you are dealing with these things. I am out to save myself, not you.
So now, based on the wisdom I gain from scriptures that has enlightened my life and the lives of many around me, I say that the story of Noah is true for me because the source of that story will always proved true in the end. Today you find details that prevent you believing such an event happened, tomorrow you may find other evidence that causes you to believe its possible. I don't want to do the same merry dance as you, I'm sticking with belief in God's Words. That's what it means to believe, you hold fast , and when all the storm dies down, you realise that holding fast to the faith always, always proves the wisest path. That's what scriptures tell us and that's what we do.
The alternative to that is to be in a state of disbelief and that's a very very
negative place to be.

systemsready · 10-10-2012 11:59AM

Jimmy444 wrote: »

I thought the funniest bit was when they were about to go into a Christian church and the cagey Northern Ireland guy went up to one of the locals and coyly said "Do you mind me asking, I this by any chance a gay church?" ! What’s a gay church? I had visions of Kenny Everett and his huge hands delivering the sermon, Liberace on the organ (oops!) , Freddy Mercury helping out on the altar. . . .

He had a point to ask if it was a gay church because it would have been something that the unbelievers would have thought of to have a bit of a laugh at his expense.
So he was right in my view to call them bullies.

systemsready · 10-10-2012 12:04PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You really need to brush up on your scripture if you're going to go down this path.

"Originally Posted by Atomic Horror Genesis 6:19
"And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."

If you wanted to delve into detail, why were there 8 people on board the Ark? Surely if it was going to be exactly like it said there would be only Noah and his wife. 2 of every sort of creature, male and female.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments