RickA said...
Several people have posted evidence that disproves the Biblical account. Maybe you missed the posts but they are there. Go back and read through all the threads.
Here is just one of the things that prove Genesis wrong that was posted on the first day of this "trial":
Genesis claims that God created light on the first day and divided the light from the darkness and that was the first morning and first evening. We know this is wrong because according to Genesis God didn't create stars that produce light until the 4th day.
You cannot have light without stars and you can't have a morning and a night without the earth rotating and pointing different parts of the earth towards the Sun.
Several people posted this glaring error and last time I checked not one Creationist even attempted a reply. Will you be the first?
@RickA
Actually, RickA, this point has been refuted numerous times. And not just by "creationists". (I seem to recall that even Steven_J weighed in on this.)
This "glaring error" you observe only appears when you inject an unwarranted assumption into the text, specifically, the idea that either of the creation accounts are presented in chronological order.
The apparent "contradiction" between the two creation accounts has also been raised, numerous times. And, again, the source of that "contradiction" is the assumption that both of the accounts are presented in chronological order.
We easily recognize that at least one of the two accounts is not presented in chronological order. That's pretty easy to figure out. What seems to be more difficult for some to decipher, is that there is no warrant for the idea that either of the accounts is ordered chronologically.
Instead, we find the ideas are presented in an order that emphasizes the author's main idea. It appears that the author is emphasizing the hierarchy of creation.
We observe the author includes a helpful mnemonic, a way for us to recognize God's creative power, and His creation, each and everyday of the week.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
never ever looked at nature
Ryk said...
"I have never ever looked at nature and thought that there is even the slightest appearance of design. Nothing natural whether plant, animal, crystal or mountain looks designed in the slightest. I have however looked at designs and thought that they resemble nature."
@Ryk
You've never observed even the "slightest" appearance of design. I see that to be possible only if we take you to mean that you have "never ever looked at nature."
You say you've "looked at designs.". Designs of what, might we well ask. You say you observe design in "nothing natural". So, these things you observe design in, we must therefore conclude, be unnatural things.
If everything that exists is nature, and there is nothing that exists beyond nature, then what exactly are these 'unnatural' things you are observing design in?
Perhaps you observe design in the products of human intelligence. I think it's reasonable to ask, is human intelligence not natural? Or, are the products of human intelligence anything other than a product of nature?
You say that these "designs" you observe "resemble" nature, in which you stated you observe no design.
One wonders what resemblance you observe. We already know it isn't design, since you've ruled out "even the slightest appearance of design" as a similar feature.
"I have never ever looked at nature and thought that there is even the slightest appearance of design. Nothing natural whether plant, animal, crystal or mountain looks designed in the slightest. I have however looked at designs and thought that they resemble nature."
@Ryk
You've never observed even the "slightest" appearance of design. I see that to be possible only if we take you to mean that you have "never ever looked at nature."
You say you've "looked at designs.". Designs of what, might we well ask. You say you observe design in "nothing natural". So, these things you observe design in, we must therefore conclude, be unnatural things.
If everything that exists is nature, and there is nothing that exists beyond nature, then what exactly are these 'unnatural' things you are observing design in?
Perhaps you observe design in the products of human intelligence. I think it's reasonable to ask, is human intelligence not natural? Or, are the products of human intelligence anything other than a product of nature?
You say that these "designs" you observe "resemble" nature, in which you stated you observe no design.
One wonders what resemblance you observe. We already know it isn't design, since you've ruled out "even the slightest appearance of design" as a similar feature.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Genesis contradicts itself
Albert said...
Gen 1:1 Genesis not only contradicts science, it also contradicts itself. Compare with Genesis 2:4-25 in which the order of events is entirely different.
Albert,
You seem to be inventing contradictions. Yes, you are quite correct to observe that the order of events in the two accounts is entirely different. But the two accounts are not at all contradictory, rather, they are complementary.
Each of the accounts emphasizes different ideas.
The key to understanding is to recognize that in the second account, the author presents the ideas in an order that emphasizes his main ideas. And this happens to be an order which is not a chronological order.
Some, of course, object that this idea is just a "trick" to twist and contort the meaning of Scripture.
I would counter that the author of the second creation account gives no indication that his purpose is to present events in chronological order, or that doing so would serve his purpose, to emphasize his main ideas.
The idea that the second account is presented chronologically is unwarranted. One might go so far as to say that injecting that meaning into the text is a "trick" to invent an apparent contradiction.
Gen 1:1 Genesis not only contradicts science, it also contradicts itself. Compare with Genesis 2:4-25 in which the order of events is entirely different.
Albert,
You seem to be inventing contradictions. Yes, you are quite correct to observe that the order of events in the two accounts is entirely different. But the two accounts are not at all contradictory, rather, they are complementary.
Each of the accounts emphasizes different ideas.
The key to understanding is to recognize that in the second account, the author presents the ideas in an order that emphasizes his main ideas. And this happens to be an order which is not a chronological order.
Some, of course, object that this idea is just a "trick" to twist and contort the meaning of Scripture.
I would counter that the author of the second creation account gives no indication that his purpose is to present events in chronological order, or that doing so would serve his purpose, to emphasize his main ideas.
The idea that the second account is presented chronologically is unwarranted. One might go so far as to say that injecting that meaning into the text is a "trick" to invent an apparent contradiction.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
original sin
JimDiver asks...
So the original sin isn't passed on to all?
Jim,
In answer to your question concerning original sin, the Bible teaches that original sin is "passed on" to all, in the sense that all are subject to the temporal consequences of original sin. But the Bible also teaches that we are not judged for the sins of our ancestors, we are not responsible for the sins of our fathers, Before the judge, we are held accountable only for our own sin.
(I offer this comment only in case you were seeking an answer to a question. My response is concise, and undoubtedly there are some that will have difficulty understanding it.)
(The difficulty for some is in recognizing that Bible speaks concerning two different realms, to both the temporal, earthly consequences of sin, and to the eternal, spiritual consequences of sin.)
So the original sin isn't passed on to all?
Jim,
In answer to your question concerning original sin, the Bible teaches that original sin is "passed on" to all, in the sense that all are subject to the temporal consequences of original sin. But the Bible also teaches that we are not judged for the sins of our ancestors, we are not responsible for the sins of our fathers, Before the judge, we are held accountable only for our own sin.
(I offer this comment only in case you were seeking an answer to a question. My response is concise, and undoubtedly there are some that will have difficulty understanding it.)
(The difficulty for some is in recognizing that Bible speaks concerning two different realms, to both the temporal, earthly consequences of sin, and to the eternal, spiritual consequences of sin.)
Friday, April 8, 2011
he has many vices
Cathy_Cooper said...
I just wanted to add, that if Jesus is [G]od, as many Christians believe, then Jesus is not perfect, as he has many vices according to the bible--vices such being jealous and angry--and his actions show he is vengeful, as he orders the slaughter of those who don't believe in him.
1Kings 11:19; Jeremiah 10:10; Exodus 34:14; Deut 5:9; Zech. 13:13
@Cathy,
God describes himself as "jealous", that does not make his jealousy a vice. Nor is "vengeance" or "anger" a vice.
God is holy and just. God cannot abide sin, there can be no peace between God and sin. God hates sin. And God is angry with sinners.
The episodes you highlight demonstrate, quite vividly, that God is just, and that wickedness is judged. God does not make peace with sin.
There is no contradiction.
God's justice is supreme, and it will prevail in the end. Do not mistake God's timing, his temporary withholding of judgment against sin, as meaning that God will not judge.
I just wanted to add, that if Jesus is [G]od, as many Christians believe, then Jesus is not perfect, as he has many vices according to the bible--vices such being jealous and angry--and his actions show he is vengeful, as he orders the slaughter of those who don't believe in him.
1Kings 11:19; Jeremiah 10:10; Exodus 34:14; Deut 5:9; Zech. 13:13
@Cathy,
God describes himself as "jealous", that does not make his jealousy a vice. Nor is "vengeance" or "anger" a vice.
God is holy and just. God cannot abide sin, there can be no peace between God and sin. God hates sin. And God is angry with sinners.
The episodes you highlight demonstrate, quite vividly, that God is just, and that wickedness is judged. God does not make peace with sin.
There is no contradiction.
God's justice is supreme, and it will prevail in the end. Do not mistake God's timing, his temporary withholding of judgment against sin, as meaning that God will not judge.
Monday, April 4, 2011
the hand I was dealt
LordBeans said...
"God made me this way, that's why there's a hell!"
There is a hell because God created it for Satan and his demons; he did not create it for you. (Matthew 25:41)
"Intelligent design leaves no room for tragedy"
Oh, how we all miss Dimensio. If he were here, he would certainly entertain us with his parrot squawking about unsubstantiated assertions.
"I'm doing what God planned for my life"
How certain are you, Lord Beans, that you are following God's plan for your life?
"I thought I was golden when I asked Jesus to save me"
I think there are many in your same shoes. I think many are led to believe that asking Jesus to save them is what is required. But that is not what the Bible teaches.
"but as it turns out, it wasn't the hand I was dealt."
You were dealt a hand, just as everyone was. And it's your privilege to play that hand. You are free to reject the dealer, and to do whatever you want with the cards. But don't presume that what you choose to with the cards was the plan of the dealer.
"There is only reason to rejoice!!"
There is reason for rejoicing when something of great value is found.
"God made me this way, that's why there's a hell!"
There is a hell because God created it for Satan and his demons; he did not create it for you. (Matthew 25:41)
"Intelligent design leaves no room for tragedy"
Oh, how we all miss Dimensio. If he were here, he would certainly entertain us with his parrot squawking about unsubstantiated assertions.
"I'm doing what God planned for my life"
How certain are you, Lord Beans, that you are following God's plan for your life?
"I thought I was golden when I asked Jesus to save me"
I think there are many in your same shoes. I think many are led to believe that asking Jesus to save them is what is required. But that is not what the Bible teaches.
"but as it turns out, it wasn't the hand I was dealt."
You were dealt a hand, just as everyone was. And it's your privilege to play that hand. You are free to reject the dealer, and to do whatever you want with the cards. But don't presume that what you choose to with the cards was the plan of the dealer.
"There is only reason to rejoice!!"
There is reason for rejoicing when something of great value is found.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)