|
Replies: 39
| visibility 51
|
Legend [17918]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8942
Joined: 12/24/96
|
A day is defined in the Genesis creation account
3
Jul 29, 2023, 7:36 AM
|
|
When the daily act of creation is completed it is signified within that daily account. It begins like this:
Gen 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
The day is defined by the evening and the morning being the first day, and so on. A day begins with the evening first since the darkness was there first - it was absent of light.
This reference is not repeated with the seventh day, however. The first six days clearly reference the day as evening and morning but the seventh is not closed out in this manner. The seventh day:
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
Now, many might suggest different ideas about what that definition of a "day" really represents, but I refer to a second biblical reference to the "day" as it being a 24 hour day. When Moses was given the 10 Commandments from God, Number 4 states:
Exodus 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Moses was quite familiar with the measure of a day and clearly states that a day is a day, simply, in the fourth commandment.
Message was edited by: HuntClub®
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: A day is defined in the Genesis creation account
1
Jul 29, 2023, 9:07 AM
|
|
Right, and we know the earth wasn’t created within a week. So the Biblical creation account is either allegorical or just wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17918]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8942
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Re: A day is defined in the Genesis creation account
2
Jul 29, 2023, 9:20 AM
|
|
I know you live by your "science," which continually changes with every new [theory] someone wishes to prove. I get it. I don't buy what you are selling though.
You have still not answered the question about the broad spectrum of life, and if evolution happened with the plants and animals all at the same time. Or does evolution only count with "animal" life forms? And what about oxygen itself? What put the atmosphere in place, and kept it there while it [life] was "evolving"?
It is a mathematical impossibility for all that is to be so because of evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11208]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14057
Joined: 9/2/03
|
No it’s not, Hunt. Good grief.
Jul 29, 2023, 3:41 PM
|
|
Science and faith are not mutually exclusive, come outta the cave….man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17918]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8942
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Re: No it’s not, Hunt. Good grief.
Jul 29, 2023, 8:35 PM
|
|
I don't believe I said that the two are mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11208]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14057
Joined: 9/2/03
|
We’ll, say what you mean
Jul 30, 2023, 12:14 AM
|
|
and mean what you say. You didn’t exactly write a post modern critique of Moten’s cultural theories, you skewered the science in a straightforward way. If I didn’t know better, you might be pulling some leg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: A day is defined in the Genesis creation account
1
Jul 29, 2023, 4:02 PM
[ in reply to Re: A day is defined in the Genesis creation account ] |
|
> I know you live by your "science," which continually changes with every new [theory] someone wishes to prove.
This is incredibly disingenuous and you know it. First off, science doesn't just change on a whim. When it changes, it's because of new evidence. It's not going to just decide that the moon is actually made of cheese or that evolution didn't happen. If that's what you think, I can see why you are confused.
Also, chiding me for "living by science" isn't the flex you think it. There is nothing unreasonable about wanting evidence for extraordinary claims.
> I don't buy what you are selling though.
lol, ironic statement. I'd love to know how pointing out scientific facts is selling something.
> You have still not answered the question about the broad spectrum of life, and if evolution happened with the plants and animals all at the same time. Or does evolution only count with "animal" life forms? And what about oxygen itself? What put the atmosphere in place, and kept it there while it [life] was "evolving"?
This is a common tactic by apologist. They will ignore the fast evidence of the fossil and DNA record that clearly shows that life evolved over time and explains the diversity of life we see today. You guys then start to ask about the initial conditions, as if they somehow invalidate evolution.
Here's the thing, evolution does not make a claim about how it all god started. It could be natural, it could be some supernatural being, it could be aliens. Evolution only claims that life started simple and evolved into the complexity we see today. The evidence for that is crystal clear.
What is happening here, is a plethora of evidence is being laid out in the form of fossil records and then people like you go "but how was breathable air formed!? What did the initial bacteria eat!?". Those ARE legitimate and interesting questions in general, they are not legitimate questions that negate evolution.
You see, if you actually debated on the clear evidence of the fossil and DNA record, you can't refute it, which is why you don't even try.
> It is a mathematical impossibility for all that is to be so because of evolution.
You should stop making this statement, it makes you look dumb. Here watch: "God is mathematically impossible". See? Makes no sense, and neither of us can back that up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17918]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8942
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Re: A day is defined in the Genesis creation account
Jul 29, 2023, 8:34 PM
|
|
>This is incredibly disingenuous and you know it. First off, science doesn't just change on a whim. When it changes, it's because of new evidence.
And therein lies the reason I continue to say your [faith] in the "science" of evolution is greater than my faith in God. It is the same as saying, "I believe every new theory leads us to a better understanding of evolution and will, ultimately, provide the ultimate answer. If we just keep digging."
You, most certainly, have faith in evolution.
>Here's the thing, evolution does not make a claim about how it all god started. It could be natural, it could be some supernatural being, it could be aliens. Evolution only claims that life started simple and evolved into the complexity we see today. The evidence for that is crystal clear.
Well, you sell it as the answer/proof there is no God. I'm not buying it.
Message was edited by: HuntClub®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: A day is defined in the Genesis creation account
1
Jul 30, 2023, 9:21 AM
|
|
> And therein lies the reason I continue to say your [faith] in the "science" of evolution is greater than my faith in God.
Well, your reasoning skills are clearly lacking. Call it faith if you wish, but faith with evidence is entirely different than faith without evidence, which is the only way to be religious.
> It is the same as saying, "I believe every new theory leads us to a better understanding of evolution and will, ultimately, provide the ultimate answer. If we just keep digging."
No, it is not. Science has already discovered evolution, the fact of evolution isn't going to change, just like we aren't suddenly going to find out that the moon is actually made of cheese.
There is still plenty to discover in evolution, but nobody, other than confused/dishonest religious people, are debating that evolution actually happened.
> Well, you sell it as the answer/proof there is no God. I'm not buying it.
Well you clearly haven't been listening to me then. I don't think it's possible to disprove God exists any more than it's possible to disprove that ghosts, fairies, or leprechauns exist. I have reasons to think they don't, but I can't ultimately prove it. What I don't have for any of them is a reason TO believe them.
What I did say is that evolution seems to clearly contradict the biblical account of creation. You see, whether a God (or gods) exist is independent of whether the Bible is the word of God. And there are plenty of errors and contradictions in the bible. Those tend to be ignored or some ridiculous reason is given as to why they aren't actually errors/contradictions.
> I'm not buying it.
I realize that. You are a man of faith, not reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93687]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95433
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I have read that when the chance of something happening...
Jul 30, 2023, 6:21 AM
[ in reply to Re: A day is defined in the Genesis creation account ] |
|
reaches 1:45,000, statistically it didn't happen. So your math is correct according to modern statistical theory but I'm sure they will find 'evidence,' of some subatomic particle or carbon residue which will make that a 50:50 chance pretty soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: I have read that when the chance of something happening...
1
Jul 30, 2023, 8:16 AM
|
|
Ok so then lottery winners should statistically never happen. The chances to hit the current mega millions is 1 in 302 million. And yet, it has happened and will happen again.
I’m also continually baffled that apologists will try to assign statistics to unlikely evens, say they can’t happen and then turn around and act like a supernatural being is more statistically likely.
All of those questions can be applied to the supernatural.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93687]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95433
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Lottery stats are no comparable in this discussion.
Jul 31, 2023, 12:34 PM
|
|
We know the origin of the lottery and we know it will grow exponentially until it's won. We can test that theory with examination of evidence which and have enough confidence in that evidence we compare it to thermodynamics. We know someone is going to win each lottery because it's always happened and we have absolute confidence that someone is going to win each and every lottery. The probability that the lottery will be won is 1.
I have never seen or heard of anyone using any form of math to evaluate the probability that God exist. I would not entertain such nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: Lottery stats are no comparable in this discussion.
2
Jul 31, 2023, 12:49 PM
|
|
None of that explains your 1 in 45000 comment though?
> We know the origin of the lottery and we know it will grow exponentially until it's won. We can test that theory with examination of evidence which and have enough confidence in that evidence we compare it to thermodynamics. We know someone is going to win each lottery because it's always happened and we have absolute confidence that someone is going to win each and every lottery. The probability that the lottery will be won is 1.
Now, how can you say a statement like that and turn around and deny evolution? We can study the Theory (scientific not colloquial) and the tests confidentially show the same results again and again.
It's a truly baffling case of cognitive dissonance. The only reason I can find that you don't believe evolution is that it contradicts your worldview. It never seems to be about the evidence itself.
> I have never seen or heard of anyone using any form of math to evaluate the probability that God exist. I would not entertain such nonsense.
Don't listen to William Lane Craig then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93687]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95433
Joined: 12/25/09
|
We see the event of the lottery and never see evolution...
Jul 31, 2023, 1:37 PM
|
|
happening. I trust in God as surely as I trust that someone, or a group, is/are going to win the lottery. I congratulate you on your great faith in those who have convinced you that evolution is science.
You trust them, I trust God. Do you know any of those people personally?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: We see the event of the lottery and never see evolution...
1
Jul 31, 2023, 2:27 PM
|
|
See, this is where I find you to be incredibly dishonest. You know that you don't have to be present in order to prove something if you have sufficient evidence. Otherwise, we couldn't solve the majority of crimes.
You know this, and yet you continue to repeat that evolution can't be proven because we can't watch one species turn into another in real time. We absolutely can see species turn into other species in the fossil record and it's back up by DNA evidence.
> I congratulate you on your great faith in those who have convinced you that evolution is science.
Again, the dishonesty is unreal. I do not have to have great faith in evolution at all. I can (and have) review the evidence for myself.
> You trust them, I trust God. Do you know any of those people personally?
This is the giant glaring difference between what you believe and what I do. I do not have to blindly trust anyone. I can (and have) looked into the fossil record and DNA evidence myself. It's extremely convincing and gives very satisfying answers.
Here's another thing, both scientists and the religious have people all over the world making claims. Guess, what, ask any two religious scholars about pretty some of the core concepts, and you are likely to get different answers. There are thousands of denominations that happen because of this.
Millions of scientists around the world who study evolution all come to the same conclusion that evolution by natural selection explains the evidence that we see. Furthermore, evolution is easy to falsify, and you would win a Nobel Prize for doing so, but you think there is some conspiracy against God is the reason the scientists say the evidence shows what it shows?
It's abundantly clear that you, as you've just shown, are willing to be dishonest in order to support your worldview.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93687]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95433
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Easy now, you're on the border...
Aug 7, 2023, 5:57 AM
|
|
of ending our conversation by calling me 'incredibly dishonest.'
Incredibly dishonest might be claiming to see evidence which leads to fact without witnessing the event(s) then disallowing my testimony and that of many others who say we know God personally and He is ever with us as evidence.
You ignore my evidence no more or less than I ignore yours. That's incredibly honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: Easy now, you're on the border...
Aug 7, 2023, 7:22 AM
|
|
> Incredibly dishonest might be claiming to see evidence which leads to fact without witnessing the event(s)
How is this not a dishonest statement? It’s objectively untrue. In fact, it would also negate the entire Bible because nobody alive was there to witness any of it.
Are you saying that the only way to know an event happened is to witness it yourself? That’s ludicrous. You can have confidence something happened, provided there is sufficient evidence, even if you didn’t see it.
Evolution passes that test with flying colors, claims about supernatural events have yet to do so.
> disallowing my testimony and that of many others who say we know God personally and He is ever with us as evidence.
I am not disallowing yours and others testimony. I just don’t find it convincing because you just assert it without evidence. I dismiss it exacerbated the same way you dismiss a mormon’s testimony.
> You ignore my evidence no more or less than I ignore yours. That's incredibly honest.
I can’t ignore evidence you haven’t given. All I’ve heard are assertions, never evidence. Name a single piece of evidence you’ve given me that I can verify myself? Quoting scripture is not verification btw, that’s again, asserting it is true because it says it is true. That logic also makes the Quran true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: A day is defined in the Genesis creation account
1
Jul 30, 2023, 2:32 PM
[ in reply to Re: A day is defined in the Genesis creation account ] |
|
“I know you live by your science”
You live by it too.
Every time you get in your car, go to the doctor, turn on the tv…
Praise science!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3074]
TigerPulse: 58%
Posts: 3564
Joined: 11/24/17
|
Re: A day is defined in the Genesis creation account
1
Jul 30, 2023, 6:55 AM
[ in reply to Re: A day is defined in the Genesis creation account ] |
|
Perhaps the earth was created with the appearance of age, like Adam and Eve. The bible doesn't tell us Adam's age but I think any reading gives the impression he was created old enough to tend to the gardend a need a "helper." He was created with an appearance older than the time he'd been on the earth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: A day is defined in the Genesis creation account
Jul 30, 2023, 8:19 AM
|
|
Sure but then that makes God a liar.
If you have stars where the light takes billions of years to here but make it happen in just a few thousand, that would be extremely deceptive.
It’s like saying that God tells us he created us in his image in our current form but then scatters evidence to make it look like evolution happens.
That would be dishonest no?
Also, why twist yourself into a logical knot in the first place? The easiest answer is that the evidence shows evolution happend and there is no evidence if adam/eve or the garden of eden.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3074]
TigerPulse: 58%
Posts: 3564
Joined: 11/24/17
|
Re: A day is defined in the Genesis creation account
1
Jul 30, 2023, 12:15 PM
|
|
No logical knot for me. I'm okay accepting the reality of God along with the reality that there are things (many things) I can't answer. I don't feel compelled to have answers for them. As someone once said (can't remember who), you don't arrive at the belief in God following a chain of reasoning. The "easy" answer may be neither Adam nor Eden existed. That doesn't make it the true answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: A day is defined in the Genesis creation account
1
Jul 31, 2023, 12:50 PM
|
|
> As someone once said (can't remember who), you don't arrive at the belief in God following a chain of reasoning.
Well, yes, exactly. That's pretty much what i've been saying because if you try to, it falls apart pretty quickly.
> The "easy" answer may be neither Adam nor Eden existed. That doesn't make it the true answer.
An answer being easy doesn't make it true, you are correct, but we know we didn't start from just a single man / women and certainly not less than 10,000 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3227]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4096
Joined: 6/24/23
|
Re: A day is defined in the Genesis creation account
Aug 19, 2023, 7:06 AM
[ in reply to Re: A day is defined in the Genesis creation account ] |
|
Long story short, it's all fiction and nonsense. There could be a God, but the Bible is nonsense and man made fiction. I do believe there is some sort of power of the universe that connects to us all. JMO
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6474]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10128
Joined: 11/2/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58448]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46333
Joined: 4/23/00
|
What I find most interesting in all of that is that
3
Jul 29, 2023, 11:34 AM
|
|
God got tired from working, and needed (or wanted) to rest. If true, God's power is obviously limited.
Everyone is free to believe what they want; I support that 100%. Personally, I am satisfied that the creation stories in the Bible are made up by men who are attempting to explain creation in the context of God as they believed him to be. I think they are beautiful stories that have impacted and influenced humanity beyond measure, but I don't think taking them literally is in any way expected or necessary for accepting and acknowledging truth, or having a real relationship with God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: What I find most interesting in all of that is that
1
Jul 29, 2023, 11:47 AM
|
|
I like your take on literal vs allegory. It is a good thing to discuss - Hunt is doing that in a fun way, kudos to him - but if two of us then go beyond that to 'you're wrong', I think it elevates the question to a place is wasn't meant to be. A person can believe it is completely literal, and arrive at no wrong theological conclusion. A person can believe three verses are millions of years apart, beginning with a big bang, and be on the same theological ground about chapter 1.
A fun question might be:, "If we assume God was not fatigued, what might be the reasons he rested?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58448]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46333
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I have no idea. Fatigue of some sort is the only reason
1
Jul 29, 2023, 12:13 PM
|
|
I, as a mere human bean, can imagine for rest. That doesn't mean, of course, that in the realm of endless possibilities, that there aren't other reasons. But if we are going to play that game of endless possibilities due to our very limited knowledge and ability to comprehend, we have to consider literally everything a possiblility (which may be correct), at which point everything becomes virtually meaningless and even more incomprehensible. It makes my head hurt just thinking about it. I mean, what if God has 12 heads representing the signs of the zodiac, and lives in an apartment in downtown Peoria? I guess it's fun to speculate (that's what we're doing here after all), but I see no reason to think the authors were implying anything other than God rested because he was tired. To me, it's perfectly clear that was the message. All fascinating stuff though, and I enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: What I find most interesting in all of that is that
Jul 29, 2023, 4:04 PM
[ in reply to Re: What I find most interesting in all of that is that ] |
|
Can I ask why "this might all just be legend written by man with some real history sprinkled in and doesn't actually have to make sense" never crosses your mind as an option?
Then you don't have to play the silly games like "well it could be literal or blah blah blah", it's just clearly the writings of man who were trying to understand the world the best they could at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93687]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95433
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I quit trying to justify the Bible...
Jul 30, 2023, 6:13 AM
|
|
by contemporary scientific beliefs many years ago. It doesn't matter if you're a shepherd of the year 2500 BC or a PHD fisizist physicist of today, either you trust in God's Word or you don't. Your beliefs and understanding of current science won't prevent the Blood of Christ from covering your sin if you will let it.
But I can say this with total and complete honesty: If you (1) stop letting secular people influence your comprehension, understanding and concepts of the Bible you will rest more easily at night. God designed all this world, the biology, botany, chemistry, physics, including gravity and magnetism and only He had complete comprehension of the absolutes of these sciences. Anyone who thinks they can become a master of either in the short lifetime of man is a fool.
Many times I've asked folks to estimate what percentage of knowledge about this world and universe man actually knows at this point in time. No one has ever ventured to respond with a number. I'm supposing the concept of what we know compared to what God knows is not estimable.
1. I use 'you,' in a plural form. I am just about satisfied that 99% of the professing Christians in this world hold beliefs which contradict Genesis and the other 1% (of us) are happy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: I quit trying to justify the Bible...
1
Jul 30, 2023, 9:26 AM
|
|
> Many times I've asked folks to estimate what percentage of knowledge about this world and universe man actually knows at this point in time. No one has ever ventured to respond with a number. I'm supposing the concept of what we know compared to what God knows is not estimable.
Many times you've been asked why the bible should be believed, and you don't answer that. Seems pretty fair.
You've said it yourself, just now even. You simply discard anything that contradicts your belief system. This line of reasoning works for all the other major religions too. If I discard my skepticism, then Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, look just as reasonable as anything else.
> stop letting secular people influence your comprehension, understanding and concepts of the Bible you will rest more easily at night.
The alternative is to let religious people influence you. And they will do it by just quoting whatever scripture/religious-practice they grew up with/near.
You see, if someone studies evolution, no matter where they are in the world, they come to the same conclusion. If you study religion, you are almost guaranteed to pick the local/largest religion in that area.
Hmm, I wonder which one is closer to universal truth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3074]
TigerPulse: 58%
Posts: 3564
Joined: 11/24/17
|
Re: I quit trying to justify the Bible...
Aug 6, 2023, 6:58 AM
|
|
"Why should the Bible be believed?" is a hard question to answer. Paul writes the scriptures are spirtually discerned. To the "natural man" they are foolishness. I don't know that anyone can truly answer why one person hears the word and believes with complete convinction, someone else hears and it bounces off them. It just seems to be the way it is.
You mentioned other religions. Has there every been a society or culture discovered who doesn't claim a belief in the supernatural? Cultures may disagree on how that supernatural entity manifests itself, but I think pretty universally mankind intuitively knows there is something far greater than himself. Something or someone to which man is responsibile. Either God put that within mankind or evolution did. To evolve is to improve. Seems odd this belief, if false, would evolve naturally in mankind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: I quit trying to justify the Bible...
Aug 6, 2023, 6:06 PM
|
|
> I don't know that anyone can truly answer why one person hears the word and believes with complete convinction, someone else hears and it bounces off them. It just seems to be the way it is.
Well, no matter the religion, most religious people were taught what to believe at a young age. It is much easier to accept something when you are young and impressionable. If you were told the story of genesis from scratch, right now, I seriously doubt you'd just take it as fact.
> You mentioned other religions. Has there every been a society or culture discovered who doesn't claim a belief in the supernatural? Cultures may disagree on how that supernatural entity manifests itself, but I think pretty universally mankind intuitively knows there is something far greater than himself.
We are beings put on a rock, floating through space with zero reason/explanation. Of course, we try to figure it out. A lot of things absolutely appear to be mystical/supernatural until you understand how they work. Can you imagine trying to figure out where lightning came from or how the sky suddenly went dark during an eclipse way back then?
It does not surprise me at all that we think there is something beyond us out there. Heck, maybe there is. I have no problem with that. What irks me is when people just substitute "supernatural" when the real answer is simply "I don't know".
> Either God put that within mankind or evolution did. To evolve is to improve. Seems odd this belief, if false, would evolve naturally in mankind.
Well, again, that's just a poor understanding of evolution. "To evolve is to improve" is simply not true. Most things created by evolution have not worked out. Only a tiny fraction of things created through the process of evolution have thrived. For whatever reason, it's extremely hard for people to grasp that evolution does not have an end goal. Humans were not the end goal of evolution, we are just another organism on a huge, continuously branching tree of life. Humans as we know if, should we survive that long, would be quite foreign to us in the distance future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3074]
TigerPulse: 58%
Posts: 3564
Joined: 11/24/17
|
Re: I quit trying to justify the Bible...
Aug 6, 2023, 8:32 PM
|
|
How can you possibly know when "most" people were taught or learned religion? I came to faith at 30.
You seem to require lots of answers from people who profess Christianity and I don't think you'd ever accept "I don't know." You want Christians to provide specific, verifiable answers and when they can't, you hold that up as evidence as their beliefs are based on fables or falsehood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: I quit trying to justify the Bible...
Aug 6, 2023, 9:52 PM
|
|
> How can you possibly know when "most" people were taught or learned religion? I came to faith at 30.
Sure, but was Christianity a new concept to you at 30? I'm assuming you were aware of it and probably surrounded by people who were Christians. You did not learn about Christianity from scratch at 30 I would guess.
> You seem to require lots of answers from people who profess Christianity and I don't think you'd ever accept "I don't know." You want Christians to provide specific, verifiable answers and when they can't, you hold that up as evidence as their beliefs are based on fables or falsehood.
You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. I am saying, specifically, that people are asserting the supernatural for things when they actually do not know.
I am not requiring anything special from Christians or any other religious people. I expect anyone making a bold claim to provide specific, verifiable answers. Any yes, if they can't, then that is a good reason to be skeptical of their claims.
Furthermore, I have accepted "I don't know" from Christians before, because it's an honest answer. Saying that god created everything or that you can be personal friends with the creator of the universe is not something that has been given any credible evidence to back it up.
You make it sound like it's my fault that Christians can't/won't back up their claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3074]
TigerPulse: 58%
Posts: 3564
Joined: 11/24/17
|
Re: I quit trying to justify the Bible...
Aug 19, 2023, 6:58 AM
|
|
People do assert the supernatural for things they don't know or understand. I'd classify that under "faith." Faith often doesn't lead to "specific, verifiable" answers. I'm going to make some assumptions here: 1) You're married. 2) You take it on faith your wife loves you. I say faith because you might have a difficult time providing "verifiable" proof of your wife's love. She may outwardly do all thing things which indicate she loves you, but ask yourself this - would it be possible for a woman who doesn't love you to also do all those things? The answer is clearly yes and I doubt you can provide "verifiable" evidence of your wife's love for you. You can provide evidence (her actions) but in the end, you're operating on faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: I quit trying to justify the Bible...
Aug 19, 2023, 4:11 PM
|
|
> I'm going to make some assumptions here: 1) You're married. 2) You take it on faith your wife loves you. I say faith because you might have a difficult time providing "verifiable" proof of your wife's love. She may outwardly do all thing things which indicate she loves you, but ask yourself this - would it be possible for a woman who doesn't love you to also do all those things? The answer is clearly yes and I doubt you can provide "verifiable" evidence of your wife's love for you. You can provide evidence (her actions) but in the end, you're operating on faith.
I'm glad you brought this example up because it's a common one, and it's not as hard-hitting as you think. Yes, of course, she could be lying and secretly hate me and I can't "prove" that. That is not operating on faith though, my wife exists, I can interact with here and see the evidence of her actions that she loves me. That does not take faith to believe. If she lied to me, then I have been deceived, it has nothing to do with faith, I've been given bad evidence.
Here's the kicker, and the part that you guys don't seem to acknowledge: we don't even get that part from God. Where is that evidence that he exists, interacts for us and loves us? I have no way to see that God even exists, like I do for my wife. THAT is operating on faith, where you never verifiable evidence that he exists.
Hell, I have a dead beat dad in real life and I don't have any trouble finding evidence that he exists. It seems like, at the very least, if this supernatural all-loving "personal" God actually existed, he would at least introduce himself. So far, he's the most absent father I could imagine.
You guys try to equate these real world examples to God, and they just aren't analogous. You guys try to equate the "faith" you guys have in the supernatural to the "faith" required to believe things we have verifiable evidence for. They are not the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93687]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95433
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I have tried the Bible for 50+ years, personally.
Aug 7, 2023, 6:08 AM
[ in reply to Re: I quit trying to justify the Bible... ] |
|
In my own life I have learned the truth by the teaching of the Bible personally through His Holy Spirit. Promise always kept. Prayers always answered along with every question though I'm sure there are more prayers to be prayed and answered and more questions to be asked and answered to come.
There's your response now tell me just what percentage of all that is knowable man knows at this time.
I'll help you start: .0000000...%. At what point does it humble you to realize we ain't all that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: I have tried the Bible for 50+ years, personally.
Aug 7, 2023, 7:26 AM
|
|
> I'll help you start: .0000000...%. At what point does it humble you to realize we ain't all that?
The irony if the statement is lost on you when you turn around and make the boldest claim you can without evidence.
I don’t think you know something that I don’t. Just like this and all your previous comments, you just assert things. It’s not knowledge, it’s just blind belief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24119]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12224
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: A day is defined in the Genesis creation account
Aug 3, 2023, 10:56 PM
|
|
Could be a scaled model
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93687]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95433
Joined: 12/25/09
|
There was a time in my life when I believed it was scaled.
Aug 7, 2023, 7:51 PM
|
|
Then I got saved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 39
| visibility 51
|
|
|
50
