|
Author
|
Topic: The Problems with Genesis: A Christian Evolutionist's View
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Ray writes: Willie: how does anyone who does not know you verify that you are a Christian? "By their fruits ye shall know them" - not by their Rayving.
“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT “The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
Message 73 of 200 (588643)
10-27-2010 12:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by granpa
10-27-2010 12:00 AM
|
|
granpa writes: well I cant prove it but I strongly suspect that it originally said that God created 'small round things' and 'round things' and 'great round things' on the 4th day. By the time it was translated into hebrew all knowledge of bacteria and eukaryotes had been lost and so the translators assumed it was referring to the round things in the sky.
Well... that's certainly one of the most far-fetched apologetics I've ever heard.
quote:
Gen 1:14-15 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Exactly how would bacteria be used "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years"?
granpa writes: these things are complex and multifaceted and I dont claim to have all the answers but that is the truth of it to the very best of my knowledge
Why can't the truth of it be that the writers got it wrong?
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 12:00 AM | | granpa has seen this message but not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 76 of 200 (588692)
10-27-2010 2:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 75 by granpa
10-27-2010 1:45 PM
|
|
(If you click the small "reply" button at the bottom of each post instead of the "Gen Reply" button, your post will link to the one you're responding to. You can also click the "peek' button to see how quotes, etc. are done.)
granpa writes: bacteria can give light upon the earth. google 'light emitting bacteria'.
I'll quote it for you again:
quote:
Gen 1:14-15 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
They mark the seasons, the days and the years. They're in the firmament (sky). They certainly don't sound like bacteria.
granpa writes: from light air from air water from water earth from earth life from life cells
That makes no sense at all.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 75 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 1:45 PM | | granpa has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 77 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 2:24 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 78 of 200 (588697)
10-27-2010 2:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by granpa
10-27-2010 2:24 PM
|
|
granpa writes: actually it says 'upon' the face of the expanse of heaven
Okay, so how do you explain bacteria "upon" the sky? And once again, how are bacteria used to mark the seasons, the days and the years?
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 2:24 PM | | granpa has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 80 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 2:54 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 81 of 200 (588702)
10-27-2010 3:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 80 by granpa
10-27-2010 2:54 PM
|
|
granpa writes: I clearly stated that they were between cells and fish.
You clearly stated in Message 75:
bacteria can give light upon the earth.
That's what I'm replying to. If you're talking about something "between cells and fish" that emits light, then I'll ask yet again: How do you explain them being used as signs for the seasons, days and years? I'm making an attempt to comprehend your viewpoint by asking the question but you're not answering it.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 80 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 2:54 PM | | granpa has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 83 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 4:21 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 85 of 200 (588708)
10-27-2010 4:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 83 by granpa
10-27-2010 4:21 PM
|
|
granpa writes: Verses 14, 15, 17, & 18 are particularly mysterious.
Verses 14, 15, 17, & 18 are only mysterious if you deliberately leave out verse 16:
quote:
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
It's talking about the sun, moon and stars. They divide the day from the night and they're signs for the seasons, days and years (verse14). It's pretty explicit. And they were created the day after the green plants.
granpa writes: there are 3 possibilities that I can think of offhand. 1. they werent in the original at all 2. they were in the original but were on the first day rather than the 4th (I am leaning toward this possibility) 3. they are a poor translation of some obscure words whose meaning we cant even guess at (yet).
I mentioned a fourth possibility earlier on: the Bible is just wrong about it.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 83 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 4:21 PM | | granpa has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 87 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 4:46 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 88 of 200 (588712)
10-27-2010 4:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 87 by granpa
10-27-2010 4:46 PM
|
|
granpa writes: I already explained verse 16. It fits very well into the overall pattern (separation and evolution leading to humans) of genesis.
But verse 16 has nothing to do with evolution leading to humans. It's clearly about lights in the heavens. Why else would they be used as signs of the seasons, days and years? I don't see where you've explained that part.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 4:46 PM | | granpa has seen this message but not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 138 of 200 (691437)
02-22-2013 12:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 137 by kofh2u
02-22-2013 11:01 AM
|
|
Re: Poor reading comorehension
kofh2u writes: It testifies as evidence that you're are not understanding the story correctly.
Understanding the story correctly does not mean twisting it into knots in an attempt to get rid of the contradictions.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 137 by kofh2u, posted 02-22-2013 11:01 AM | | kofh2u has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 140 by kofh2u, posted 02-22-2013 1:00 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 142 of 200 (691624)
02-23-2013 11:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 140 by kofh2u
02-22-2013 1:00 PM
|
|
Re: Poor reading comorehension
kofh2u writes: ...merely choosen to understand the Hebrew word as "a long duration" is no more "twisting" than intentionally choosing "24 hour Earth day...."
Choosing your favorite definition most certainly is twisting the text. It has been expained ad nauseam in many topics on this forum that the "day" as it is used in Genesis 1 does always refer to a 24-hour period. You are ignoring the plain meaning of the word in an attempt to reconcile something to reality that cannot be reconciled.
kofh2u writes: ... which is clearly erroneous, contradictory, and against all Truth and Modern Science.
Yes, Genesis 1 is erroneous, contradictory and contary to modern science. So is the notion of absolute "Truth".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 140 by kofh2u, posted 02-22-2013 1:00 PM | | kofh2u has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 146 of 200 (691772)
02-25-2013 11:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 143 by kofh2u
02-23-2013 8:39 PM
|
|
Re: Poor reading comprehension
kofh2u writes: You guys start the discussion saying your position is : "Genesis 1 is erroneous, contradictory and contary to modern science."
Yes.
kofh2u writes: And I enter saying, "The story corresponds exactly with science given the need to couch it in terms that are indirect, but recognizably referring to the same genral unfolding of the Cosmos."
But why is there that "need"? Why can't the Bible just be wrong? Why do you "need" to force a square Bible into a round scientific hole?
kofh2u writes: Let the lurking readers be the judge....
Amen to that.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 143 by kofh2u, posted 02-23-2013 8:39 PM | | kofh2u has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 147 of 200 (691776)
02-25-2013 11:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 145 by kofh2u
02-24-2013 1:14 PM
|
|
Re: truth...
kofh2u writes: There is no such thing as "Absolute Truth." There is that which is true, and everything else is a lie or an error in thinking about the Ideal of Truth.
There's no such thing as an "Ideal of Truth" either. There's just a pile of things that are true or partially true.
kofh2u writes: Truth is an ideal, like Love or Wisdom is an Ideal.
Love and wisdom are both practical factors in human life. Idealizing them has little value.
kofh2u writes: ... the definition of Truth is merely that it corresponds with what is Real. I can accept that as a working definition. Genesis is not true because it doesn't correspond to what is real. By trying to force it to correspond you are, in fact, bending the truth.
kofh2u writes: Truth is the image of Reality, and is congruent to that Reality, one-to-one.
Remember that an image is not the real thing and therefore is not necessarily congruent to reality on a one-to-one basis. For example, my avatar is a two-dimensional image of a three-dimensional reality. If you would learn to read Genesis as an image of reality instead of as reality, you'd get a lot closer to the "truth".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 145 by kofh2u, posted 02-24-2013 1:14 PM | | kofh2u has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 158 of 200 (692587)
03-05-2013 11:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 149 by kofh2u
03-03-2013 6:22 PM
|
|
Re: truth...
kofh2u writes: Of course there is am ideal concept of Truth because theree is one Reality to which Truth corrrsponds one-to-one by definition.
Your definition is wrong. Reality does not correspond one-to-one with any ideal concept. The church persecuted Galileo because his observations of reality did not conform to their ideal concept of what reality "should" be.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 149 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 6:22 PM | | kofh2u has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 159 of 200 (692588)
03-05-2013 11:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 150 by kofh2u
03-03-2013 6:26 PM
|
|
Re: truth...
kofh2u writes: Of course Tuth is not Reality anymore than the son is the father, but for man, we can not tell the difference between the two.
The important thing to understand is that any model we have is only an image of reality. If there is a "Truth", our models - all of them, including the religious ones - are only imcomplete images. You can not know Truth.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 150 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 6:26 PM | | kofh2u has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 160 by jaywill, posted 03-05-2013 4:03 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 161 of 200 (692661)
03-06-2013 11:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 160 by jaywill
03-05-2013 4:03 PM
|
|
Re: truth...
jaywill writes: Ringo, is this a true statement that we can know ?
I make a distinction between truth and Truth, which I usually call "Truth" to draw attention to the distinction. Little-t truth can be varified by observation. It is true that the sun rises in the east (or appears to). If big-t Truth is an "ideal" that cannot be observed directly, then it can not be little-t truth.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 160 by jaywill, posted 03-05-2013 4:03 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 162 by jaywill, posted 03-06-2013 11:56 AM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 163 of 200 (692672)
03-06-2013 12:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 162 by jaywill
03-06-2013 11:56 AM
|
|
Re: truth...
jaywill writes: Was "Truth cannot be known" itself a big T Truth or a little t truth ?
All real truth is little-t truth.
jaywill writes: It is POSSIBLE that someone knew big T Truth and you didn't realize that this was what was being known.
If somebody claims to know big-t Truth, he has to be able to demonstrate how he observed it. Without repeatability, his claim is unreliable.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 162 by jaywill, posted 03-06-2013 11:56 AM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 164 by jaywill, posted 03-06-2013 12:12 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2