But god literaly said that he created darkness on day 1
then god literaly said "1 day in my eyes could be a thousand years in yours"
So literaly 1day == 24hrs
1 day == 1000years
Why can you apply the literal prose to one paragraph but not to the other, when they both come from the same book (genesis) ?
You need to understand the context of the surrounding passages. You can't just pull one verse out and make a doctrine around it. Some cults do that, sure, but that would be incorrect. God specifically said 1 day and in this case he meant it.
But god literaly said that he created darkness on day 1
then god literaly said "1 day in my eyes could be a thousand years in yours"
So literaly 1day == 24hrs
1 day == 1000years
Why can you apply the literal prose to one paragraph but not to the other, when they both come from the same book (genesis) ?*
*putting my arguments about translations of an ancient language into a literal prose aside
Because one day means one day, the line is meant to show that God is eternal and that every passing moment to God is both an eternity and an instant, his nature is not one of time. It doesn't say "god created it in one day in his eyes" it said that he created it in one day...when the Bible wants to imply something, it isn't vague about it.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Sorry, I believe you are confusing the catalyzation theories used by creationists for things like the grand canyon and continental drift with regards to the great flood.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
But god literaly said that he created darkness on day 1
then god literaly said "1 day in my eyes could be a thousand years in yours"
So literaly 1day == 24hrs
1 day == 1000years
Why can you apply the literal prose to one paragraph but not to the other, when they both come from the same book (genesis) ?*
*putting my arguments about translations of an ancient language into a literal prose aside
Because one day means one day, the line is meant to show that God is eternal and that every passing moment to God is both an eternity and an instant, his nature is not one of time. It doesn't say "god created it in one day in his eyes" it said that he created it in one day...when the Bible wants to imply something, it isn't vague about it.
So the book of genesis is written in both the literal and metaphoric prose ?
How could he have known how long it took if he hadn't even created time yet (darkness was the first thing he created from memory) and how could he apply that time to a entity that does not exist in time ? Well thats an unfair question, only god can answer that. But what is your thought on that sentiment ?
How would you like me to answer that? He's God...he can create time if he so wishes, the fact that he is not subject to the constraints of time does not mean that he couldn't create it for us to live in.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Because creationism isn't accepted as science, in order for something to become an accepted scientific theory, it has to be accepted by a large portion of the scientific community, you stick the word God into anything, and it stops being science for some reason. if you were to replace the word God with "naturalistic phenomenon" you would have a better chance of being accepted as science.
No, for something to become an accepted scientific theory it has to be logical, and possible to at least some degree. The idea of god contradicts all known laws of the universe, among other things, therefore it is illogical, therefore it is not scientific.In what way does an idea of God contradict known laws of the universe? Tell me which laws conclusively show that there is no God...I'm dying to hear the Richard Dawkins quotes on this one.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Perhaps ignored was a poor choice in words...more like...Science has changed a few things in order to fit the increasing amounts of evidence against evolution and the Big Bang, three simple cases are posted in my post in the previous page...but I'll give a few more here, cases in which science has attempted to go back and explain something because it doesn't fit with their beliefs Yes... When a theory doesn't work it changes or a new theory pops up, if the theory is proven true it becomes fact. Evolution and the big bang are theories. I suppose preachers are the same as scientists in this sense. Once something stated in the bible is proven false, that portion of the bible becomes metaphorical instead of literal.
The density of Mercury(believed by evolutionists that a meteor hit mercury and caused it to be so dense, because it was way too dense to be billions of years old) Saturns rings' rate of dissipation (also believed by evolutionists to have been hit by a meteor, causing a renewal of its rings) Mars' atmospheric pressure (also believed by evolutionists to have been hit by a meteor, noticing a pattern here?) The number of comets in the solar system (proposed Oort cloud roughly one ly away from our solar system, spitting comets back into our solar system, though no actual observable data supports the existance of such a cloud, it is only theorized because it would be impossible to explain the number of comets in our solar system otherwise) And as I said before, CMB levels, Red Shift problems, Dinosaur fossils containing soft tissue, want more? Pseudo science is so dead set on making everything work for a theory of billions of years that they will explain away any amount of evidence against it, they just keep on believing, despite what the evidence is saying. Links? I'm not calling you a liar here I'd just enjoy the read. And again, theories change. And as far as soft tissue being found in dinosaur fossils... Isn't it possible if not likely that some of the dinosaurs of the known species' from the old days survived after the ice age? I don't see this being too big a stretch, and eventually they would have died out for lack of breeding partners/predators etcetera like any other endangered species.
From what I can tell, your only argument against science here is that sometimes theories are wrong. Nothing out of the ordinary there. Just because a theory is well known doesn't make it absolute truth. Big Bang and Darwinian theories just happen to be the best theoretical explanations we have right now. Mind you there have been far worse theories that science figured out in the long run, the earth being flat, earth being the center of the universe, the sun orbiting earth etc.
Perhaps ignored was a poor choice in words...more like...Science has changed a few things in order to fit the increasing amounts of evidence against evolution and the Big Bang, three simple cases are posted in my post in the previous page...but I'll give a few more here, cases in which science has attempted to go back and explain something because it doesn't fit with their beliefs Yes... When a theory doesn't work it changes or a new theory pops up, if the theory is proven true it becomes fact. Evolution and the big bang are theories. I suppose preachers are the same as scientists in this sense. Once something stated in the bible is proven false, that portion of the bible becomes metaphorical instead of literal. This is not true across the spectrum of believers. The bible is clear which passages are to be taken metaphorical and which passages areto be taken literal. My opinion is that the bible acts as a guide on how to interpret the bible. I am sure you are aware there are many Christian groups which do not believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, especially the more liberal denominations. Therefore there are numerous differing opinions on several passages.
The density of Mercury(believed by evolutionists that a meteor hit mercury and caused it to be so dense, because it was way too dense to be billions of years old) Saturns rings' rate of dissipation (also believed by evolutionists to have been hit by a meteor, causing a renewal of its rings) Mars' atmospheric pressure (also believed by evolutionists to have been hit by a meteor, noticing a pattern here?) The number of comets in the solar system (proposed Oort cloud roughly one ly away from our solar system, spitting comets back into our solar system, though no actual observable data supports the existance of such a cloud, it is only theorized because it would be impossible to explain the number of comets in our solar system otherwise) And as I said before, CMB levels, Red Shift problems, Dinosaur fossils containing soft tissue, want more? Pseudo science is so dead set on making everything work for a theory of billions of years that they will explain away any amount of evidence against it, they just keep on believing, despite what the evidence is saying. Links? I'm not calling you a liar here I'd just enjoy the read. And again, theories change. And as far as soft tissue being found in dinosaur fossils... Isn't it possible if not likely that some of the dinosaurs of the known species' from the old days survived after the ice age? I don't see this being too big a stretch, and eventually they would have died out for lack of breeding partners/predators etcetera like any other endangered species.
From what I can tell, your only argument against science here is that sometimes theories are wrong. Nothing out of the ordinary there. Just because a theory is well known doesn't make it absolute truth. Big Bang and Darwinian theories just happen to be the best theoretical explanations we have right now. Mind you there have been far worse theories that science figured out in the long run, the earth being flat, earth being the center of the universe, the sun orbiting earth etc.
Perhaps ignored was a poor choice in words...more like...Science has changed a few things in order to fit the increasing amounts of evidence against evolution and the Big Bang, three simple cases are posted in my post in the previous page...but I'll give a few more here, cases in which science has attempted to go back and explain something because it doesn't fit with their beliefs Yes... When a theory doesn't work it changes or a new theory pops up, if the theory is proven true it becomes fact. Evolution and the big bang are theories. I suppose preachers are the same as scientists in this sense. Once something stated in the bible is proven false, that portion of the bible becomes metaphorical instead of literal. This is not true across the spectrum of believers. The bible is clear which passages are to be taken metaphorical and which passages areto be taken literal. My opinion is that the bible acts as a guide on how to interpret the bible. I am sure you are aware there are many Christian groups which do not believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, especially the more liberal denominations. Therefore there are numerous differing opinions on several passages. The bible acts as a guide on how to interpret the bible? What? How does it guide its self and interpret its self? Not even close to the majority of christian's don't believe in the literal interpretations, so now, the Christian groups that don't believe in the literal interpretations, are the minority. Its likely that these groups are looked down upon, likewise to non-believers. The density of Mercury(believed by evolutionists that a meteor hit mercury and caused it to be so dense, because it was way too dense to be billions of years old) Saturns rings' rate of dissipation (also believed by evolutionists to have been hit by a meteor, causing a renewal of its rings) Mars' atmospheric pressure (also believed by evolutionists to have been hit by a meteor, noticing a pattern here?)
The number of comets in the solar system (proposed Oort cloud roughly one ly away from our solar system, spitting comets back into our solar system, though no actual observable data supports the existance of such a cloud, it is only theorized because it would be impossible to explain the number of comets in our solar system otherwise) And as I said before, CMB levels, Red Shift problems, Dinosaur fossils containing soft tissue, want more? Pseudo science is so dead set on making everything work for a theory of billions of years that they will explain away any amount of evidence against it, they just keep on believing, despite what the evidence is saying. Links? I'm not calling you a liar here I'd just enjoy the read. And again, theories change. And as far as soft tissue being found in dinosaur fossils... Isn't it possible if not likely that some of the dinosaurs of the known species' from the old days survived after the ice age? I don't see this being too big a stretch, and eventually they would have died out for lack of breeding partners/predators etcetera like any other endangered species.
From what I can tell, your only argument against science here is that sometimes theories are wrong. Nothing out of the ordinary there. Just because a theory is well known doesn't make it absolute truth. Big Bang and Darwinian theories just happen to be the best theoretical explanations we have right now. Mind you there have been far worse theories that science figured out in the long run, the earth being flat, earth being the center of the universe, the sun orbiting earth etc.
Change my mind so much I can't even trust it My mind change me so much I can't even trust myself
But god literaly said that he created darkness on day 1
then god literaly said "1 day in my eyes could be a thousand years in yours"
So literaly 1day == 24hrs
1 day == 1000years
Why can you apply the literal prose to one paragraph but not to the other, when they both come from the same book (genesis) ?*
*putting my arguments about translations of an ancient language into a literal prose aside
Because one day means one day, the line is meant to show that God is eternal and that every passing moment to God is both an eternity and an instant, his nature is not one of time. It doesn't say "god created it in one day in his eyes" it said that he created it in one day...when the Bible wants to imply something, it isn't vague about it.
So the book of genesis is written in both the literal and metaphoric prose ?
How could he have known how long it took if he hadn't even created time yet (darkness was the first thing he created from memory) and how could he apply that time to a entity that does not exist in time ? Well thats an unfair question, only god can answer that. But what is your thought on that sentiment ?
How would you like me to answer that? He's God...he can create time if he so wishes, the fact that he is not subject to the constraints of time does not mean that he couldn't create it for us to live in.
Thats not my question, my question is how could it be possible for someone, who exists out side of time, to quantasize time before he has even created it ?
And no, i am talking about continental drift, not the flood of the grand canyon
I'm not sure how you can't come to that answer for yourself...if you know what Christians believe about God then you know that it is believed that he is completely in control of everything, so how would a creation of something like time be any different for him?
Infliction: If you want to use circular logic that God is not scientific, therefore nothing having to do with God can be a theory, therefore science can't involve God, then there is nothing that I can do to debate you. Personally, I think that science should be coming up with the most logical conclusions period...not the most logical conclusions sans God.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
But god literaly said that he created darkness on day 1
then god literaly said "1 day in my eyes could be a thousand years in yours"
So literaly 1day == 24hrs
1 day == 1000years
Why can you apply the literal prose to one paragraph but not to the other, when they both come from the same book (genesis) ?*
*putting my arguments about translations of an ancient language into a literal prose aside
Because one day means one day, the line is meant to show that God is eternal and that every passing moment to God is both an eternity and an instant, his nature is not one of time. It doesn't say "god created it in one day in his eyes" it said that he created it in one day...when the Bible wants to imply something, it isn't vague about it.
So the book of genesis is written in both the literal and metaphoric prose ?
How could he have known how long it took if he hadn't even created time yet (darkness was the first thing he created from memory) and how could he apply that time to a entity that does not exist in time ? Well thats an unfair question, only god can answer that. But what is your thought on that sentiment ?
How would you like me to answer that? He's God...he can create time if he so wishes, the fact that he is not subject to the constraints of time does not mean that he couldn't create it for us to live in.
Thats not my question, my question is how could it be possible for someone, who exists out side of time, to quantasize time before he has even created it ?
And no, i am talking about continental drift, not the flood of the grand canyon
I'm not sure how you can't come to that answer for yourself...if you know what Christians believe about God then you know that it is believed that he is completely in control of everything, so how would a creation of something like time be any different for him?
Infliction: If you want to use circular logic that God is not scientific, therefore nothing having to do with God can be a theory, therefore science can't involve God, then there is nothing that I can do to debate you. Personally, I think that science should be coming up with the most logical conclusions period...not the most logical conclusions sans God.
I could say that bunny rabbits are able to travel to other dimensions and that they themselves created the universe, and that would be exactly as logical as saying God created everything. That being said, its not logical at all, and nothing is less logical than the idea of such, no matter how ridiculous or how many people believe in it.
I could say that bunny rabbits are able to travel to other dimensions and that they themselves created the universe, and that would be exactly as logical as saying God created everything. That being said, its not logical at all, and nothing is less logical than the idea of such, no matter how ridiculous or how many people believe in it.
Whereas of course it is perfectly logical that an uncreated universe just happened by itself, and just happened to work in an ordered way and humans developed with a brain capacity far more advanced than they ever used.
That's just a great example of "logic" just being an opinion.
I could say that bunny rabbits are able to travel to other dimensions and that they themselves created the universe, and that would be exactly as logical as saying God created everything. That being said, its not logical at all, and nothing is less logical than the idea of such, no matter how ridiculous or how many people believe in it.
Whereas of course it is perfectly logical that an uncreated universe just happened by itself, and just happened to work in an ordered way and humans developed with a brain capacity far more advanced than they ever used.
That's just a great example of "logic" just being an opinion.
So if human logic is so subjective and limited with regards to the origin of the universe, why even attempt to argue one way or the other?
For all we know, our understanding of time is elementary, and the universe may not have a beginning or an end as we understand it. On the flip side, maybe some higher being did do all of this. The only reason I lean towards the former is because humans are way too primitive for such a powerful entity to give a damn about us. But since I recognize the fact that I'm insignificant in the big picture, I accept the fact that I don't have any idea how it all came to be, and to jump to a conclusion would be baseless.
Who knows how it all started? Both of the current explanations are laughable.
So if human logic is so subjective and limited with regards to the origin of the universe, why even attempt to argue one way or the other?
For all we know, our understanding of time is elementary, and the universe may not have a beginning or an end as we understand it. On the flip side, maybe some higher being did do all of this. The only reason I lean towards the former is because humans are way too primitive for such a powerful entity to give a damn about us. But since I recognize the fact that I'm insignificant in the big picture, I accept the fact that I don't have any idea how it all came to be, and to jump to a conclusion would be baseless.
Who knows how it all started? Both of the current explanations are laughable.
Logic should really be a way for allowing people to agree over something. We should be able to look at an argument and come to an agreement that the steps follow on, and what assumptions are being made. To say something is not logical because either you don't understand it or because it doesn't make sense to you makes "logic" subjective.
It's quite possible for one person to study biology and be inspired to believe in a creator and another to study it an come to the conclusion that things just evolved that way. Such a conclusion is not based on logic as such but more on interpretation.
As i said in my post above though, the belief of a god makes the argumet infinitly more complex, thats without argument and logic would say it would make the goal of the theory of everything impossible.
Relgion is religion, it isnt science, its a matter of faith.
Just like when scientist say they beleive in the big bang, they dont mean to say that the universe exploded out of nothing, thats not what the big bang theory says at all. No explosion, no nothing, its just a way to name something logically.
I think if god were to show me into his mind, that i would find a very similar strategy in use. The bible uses terms (some times literal terms, much like big-bangs 'explosion') To portray ideas, these ideas may be literal, and ment to be taken as word, but their description are given figurativly both for ease of comprehension.
And once again i will bring up the fact that we are basing this whole thing on an ancient language translated throughout history, and now we are so into nitty-gritty we are arguing about prose. Do you really think that language, prose, writing style, translations, words, meanings, vocabulary, grammer, human thought, hasnt change in 2000+ years ?
I'm actually kind of with you on this, Nasica. For me, while it's possible that it happened exactly how Genesis portrays it,I'm not sure the Bible was trying to give an accurate scientific explanation, but as you say, putting things into terms that could be understood and understood by people thousands of years ago. The language needed to describe how God created the universe probably didn't even exist then or maybe not even now and may well need a library of books to describe.
I do notice a lot of people putting exactly the same kind of faith in science. In this area, some of it is theory, much of it is mere hypothesis, and yet many people seem to be convinced that there's enough there to somehow show that a creator God of some kind was not involved. I've even seen people state with confidence that science will in time prove that God doesn't exist. Now, that's faith for you .
So if human logic is so subjective and limited with regards to the origin of the universe, why even attempt to argue one way or the other?
For all we know, our understanding of time is elementary, and the universe may not have a beginning or an end as we understand it. On the flip side, maybe some higher being did do all of this. The only reason I lean towards the former is because humans are way too primitive for such a powerful entity to give a damn about us. But since I recognize the fact that I'm insignificant in the big picture, I accept the fact that I don't have any idea how it all came to be, and to jump to a conclusion would be baseless.
Who knows how it all started? Both of the current explanations are laughable.
Logic should really be a way for allowing people to agree over something. We should be able to look at an argument and come to an agreement that the steps follow on, and what assumptions are being made. To say something is not logical because either you don't understand it or because it doesn't make sense to you makes "logic" subjective.
It's quite possible for one person to study biology and be inspired to believe in a creator and another to study it an come to the conclusion that things just evolved that way. Such a conclusion is not based on logic as such but more on interpretation.
The bible uses terms (some times literal terms, much like big-bangs 'explosion') To portray ideas, these ideas may be literal, and ment to be taken as word, but their description are given figurativly both for ease of comprehension.
And once again i will bring up the fact that we are basing this whole thing on an ancient language translated throughout history, and now we are so into nitty-gritty we are arguing about prose. Do you really think that language, prose, writing style, translations, words, meanings, vocabulary, grammer, human thought, hasnt change in 2000+ years ?
Please quote from the bible these "big-bang" terms you suggesting. I have been a student of God's Word for a long time and nowhere does it describe anything like the outrageous theory of the Big Bang.
Yes, language has changed over time. It is very fortunate though that the books that make up the bible were meticulously written down at the same times in a number of languages. I know it would be easier for you to assume that meaning or thoughts were lost but that simply is not the case.
Like I have said in this post, there are thousands of manuscripts starting from 20 years after the Death of Christ which detail these writings. No one manuscript is taken into its own account. Many hundreds were painstakingly compared for years before any translation was accomplished. So to answer your question.....all your language arguments do not stand up under scrutiny.
I haven't read this whole thread (14 pages ) but I did hear several people mention that the majority of todays youth are being taught to be religious. I am 15 years old and go to public school. Public schools are not teaching children to be religious, they are teaching us to be atheists. I was never a religious kid (as my parents weren't religious folk) so school only affirmed my belief. But I've known many other kids that were raised as Christians, or Muslims, and so on, completely lose their faith going through high school. I'm not sure how public school was when you older folks went to it, but I think most children my age will agree that public schools preach atheism. For example: creationism is banned in are school and a few teachers have gotten in alot of trouble for just mentioning it to us in class. To sum my little ramble up, I do not believe the majority of kids are going to be religious when they grow up. I'd go as far as to say that I don't believe that religious people are going to be in the majority for much longer.
So if human logic is so subjective and limited with regards to the origin of the universe, why even attempt to argue one way or the other?
For all we know, our understanding of time is elementary, and the universe may not have a beginning or an end as we understand it. On the flip side, maybe some higher being did do all of this. The only reason I lean towards the former is because humans are way too primitive for such a powerful entity to give a damn about us. But since I recognize the fact that I'm insignificant in the big picture, I accept the fact that I don't have any idea how it all came to be, and to jump to a conclusion would be baseless.
Who knows how it all started? Both of the current explanations are laughable.
Logic should really be a way for allowing people to agree over something. We should be able to look at an argument and come to an agreement that the steps follow on, and what assumptions are being made. To say something is not logical because either you don't understand it or because it doesn't make sense to you makes "logic" subjective.
It's quite possible for one person to study biology and be inspired to believe in a creator and another to study it an come to the conclusion that things just evolved that way. Such a conclusion is not based on logic as such but more on interpretation.
The bible uses terms (some times literal terms, much like big-bangs 'explosion') To portray ideas, these ideas may be literal, and ment to be taken as word, but their description are given figurativly both for ease of comprehension.
And once again i will bring up the fact that we are basing this whole thing on an ancient language translated throughout history, and now we are so into nitty-gritty we are arguing about prose. Do you really think that language, prose, writing style, translations, words, meanings, vocabulary, grammer, human thought, hasnt change in 2000+ years ?
Please quote from the bible these "big-bang" terms you suggesting. I have been a student of God's Word for a long time and nowhere does it describe anything like the outrageous theory of the Big Bang.
Yes, language has changed over time. It is very fortunate though that the books that make up the bible were meticulously written down at the same times in a number of languages. I know it would be easier for you to assume that meaning or thoughts were lost but that simply is not the case.
Like I have said in this post, there are thousands of manuscripts starting from 20 years after the Death of Christ which detail these writings. No one manuscript is taken into its own account. Many hundreds were painstakingly compared for years before any translation was accomplished. So to answer your question.....all your language arguments do not stand up under scrutiny."Then God commanded 'let there be light'" - sounds like a explosive creation of the universe to me
Youll find that one on the first page.
But as a counter, can you actually show me a quote thats speaks directly of the creation of the UNIVERSE, and not just earth ?
But thats not my point, my point is that popular science has grabbed hold of the term 'big bang' and now most ppl think it means that the universe started in an explosion, which is not what the big bang theory says. Heres a verse for you:
Colossians 1:16
16 Forby Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Just to be clear about Christianity....Their beliefs are not going to be swayed by the latest "popular theory" made by science that is here today and gone tomorrow. "Science" changes their tune on some aspect related to the subjects we are talking about with each new find or discovery. There is no consistency with science--Only from God.
I haven't read this whole thread (14 pages ) but I did hear several people mention that the majority of todays youth are being taught to be religious. I am 15 years old and go to public school. Public schools are not teaching children to be religious, they are teaching us to be atheists. I was never a religious kid (as my parents weren't religious folk) so school only affirmed my belief. But I've known many other kids that were raised as Christians, or Muslims, and so on, completely lose their faith going through high school. I'm not sure how public school was when you older folks went to it, but I think most children my age will agree that public schools preach atheism. For example: creationism is banned in are school and a few teachers have gotten in alot of trouble for just mentioning it to us in class. To sum my little ramble up, I do not believe the majority of kids are going to be religious when they grow up. I'd go as far as to say that I don't believe that religious people are going to be in the majority for much longer.
However unfortunate that may be it is inevitable. Two thousand years ago it was prophesied there would be an apostacy leading to the end.
Interesting fact about the Bible, it was mostly psuedopigraphical. That is to say, the original authors used the names of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John to cover up their true identities. This was a fairly common practice among early Christians since discovery usually meant a very painful, and public, death. Furthermore, there are several non-canonical books of the Bible (Mary, Peter, Thomas, and Philip) that are recognized as being pseudopigraphical by both Christian and no-Christian scholars alike. For now, let's just focus on the first four books....
Mark: written in the name of Mark, the disciple of the mythical Peter. Even in Christian mythology, Mark was not a disciple of Jesus, but a friend of Paul and Luke. Mark was written before Matthew and Luke (c. 100 C.E.) but after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., which it mentions. Most Christians believe it was written in c. 75 C.E. This date is not based on history but on the belief that an historical Mark wrote the gospel in his old age. This is not possible since the style of language used in Mark shows that it was written (probably in Rome) by a Roman convert to Christianity whose first language was Latin and not Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. ndeed, since all the other gospels are written in the name of legendary characters from the past, Mark was probably written long after any historical Mark (if there was one) had died. The content of Mark is a collection of myths and legends put together to form a continuous narrative. There is no evidence that it was based on any reliable historical sources. Mark was altered and edited many times and the modern version probably dates to about 150 C.E. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 C.E. - c. 215 C.E.) complained about the alternative versions of this gospel which were still circulating in his lifetime. (The Carpocratians, an early Christian sect, considered pederasty to be a virtue and Clement complained about their versions of Mark which told of Jesus's homosexual exploits with young boys!)
Mathew: was certainly not written by the apostle Matthew. he Gospel of Matthew was originally anonymous and was only assigned the name Matthew some time during the first half of the second century C.E. The earliest form was probably written at more or less the same time as the Gospel of Luke (c. 100 C.E.), since neither seems to know of the other. It was altered and edited until about 150 C.E. The first two chapters, dealing with the virgin birth, were not in the original version and the Christians in Israel of Jewish descent preferred this earlier version. For its sources it used Mark and a collection of teachings referred to as the Second Source (or the Q Document). The Second Source has not survived as a separate document, but its full contents are found in Matthew and Luke. All the teachings contained in it can be found in Judaism. The more reasonable teachings can be found in mainstream Judaism, while the less reasonable ones can be found in sectarian Judaism. There is nothing in it which would require us to suppose the existence of a real historical Jesus. Although Matthew and Luke attribute the teachings in it to Jesus, the Epistle of James attributes them to James. Thus Matthew provides no historical evidence for Jesus.
Luke: and the book of Acts (which were two parts of a single work) were written in the name of the Christian mythological character Luke the healer (who was probably not an historical person but a Christian adaptation of the Greek healer god Lykos). Even in Christian mythology, Luke was not a disciple of Jesus but a friend of Paul. Luke and Acts use Josephus's Jewish Antiquities as a reference, and so they could not have been written before 93 C.E. At this time, any friend of Paul would be either dead or well into senility. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian scholars agree that the earliest versions of the two books were written by an anonymous Christian in c. 100 C.E and were altered and edited until c. 150 - 175 C.E. Besides Josephus's book, Luke and Acts also use the Gospel of Mark and the Second Source as references. Although Josephus is considered to be more or less reliable, the anonymous author often misread and misunderstood Josephus and moreover, none of the information about Jesus in Luke and Acts comes from Josephus. Thus Luke and Acts are of no historical value.
John: written in the name of the apostle John the brother of James, son of Zebedee. The author of Luke used as many sources as he could get hold of but he was unaware of John. Thus John more than likely could not have been written before Luke (c. 100 C.E.) Consequently John could not have been written by the semi-mythical character John the Apostle who was supposed to have been killed by Herod Agrippa shortly before his own death in 44 C.E. (John the Apostle is apparently based on an historical disciple of the false Messiah Theudas who was crucified by the Romans in 44 C.E. and whose disciples were murdered.) The real author of the Gospel of John was in fact an anonymous Christian from Ephesus in Asia Minor. The oldest surviving fragment of John dates to c. 125 C.E. and so we can date the gospel to c. 100 - 125 C.E. Based on stylistic considerations many scholars narrow down the date to c. 110 - 120 C.E. The earliest version of John did not contain the last chapter which deals with Jesus appearing to his disciples. Like the other gospels, John probably only attained its present form around 150 - 175 C.E. The author of John used Mark sparingly and so one suspects that he did not trust it. He either had not read Matthew and Luke or he did not trust them since he does not use any information from them which was not found in Mark. Most of John consists of legends with obvious underlying allegorical interpretations and one suspects that the author never intended them to be history. John does not contain any information from reliable historical sources.
Christians will claim that the Gospel of John itself states that it is an historical document written by John. This claim is based on the verses John 19.34-35 and John 21.20 - 24. John 19.34-35 does not claim that the gospel was written by John. It claims that the events described in the immediately preceding verses were accurately reported by a witness. The passage is ambiguous and it is not clear whether the witness is supposed to be the same person as the author. Many scholars are of the opinion that the ambiguity is deliberate and that the author of John is trying to tease his readers in this passage as well as in the passages which tell miraculous stories with allegorical interpretations. John 21.20-24 also does not claim that the author is John. It claims that the disciple mentioned in the passage is the one who witnessed the events described. It is again notably ambiguous as regards the question of whether the disciple is the same person as the author. It should be noted that this passage is in the last chapter of John which was not part of the original gospel but was added on as an epilogue by an anonymous redactor. One should beware the fact that many "easy to understand" translations of the New Testament distort the passages mentioned so as to remove the ambiguity found in the original Greek. (Ideally one needs to be familiar with the original Greek text of the New Testament in order to avoid biased and distorted translations used by fundamentalist Christians.)
In short, if you believe Christianity purely on faith, no one can touch you. It's when you try to claim "historical veracity" or "scientific proof" that you'll get knocked down. And rightfully so.
Obviously, the Bible itself is not a reliable historical record, in and of itself.
So if human logic is so subjective and limited with regards to the origin of the universe, why even attempt to argue one way or the other?
For all we know, our understanding of time is elementary, and the universe may not have a beginning or an end as we understand it. On the flip side, maybe some higher being did do all of this. The only reason I lean towards the former is because humans are way too primitive for such a powerful entity to give a damn about us. But since I recognize the fact that I'm insignificant in the big picture, I accept the fact that I don't have any idea how it all came to be, and to jump to a conclusion would be baseless.
Who knows how it all started? Both of the current explanations are laughable.
Logic should really be a way for allowing people to agree over something. We should be able to look at an argument and come to an agreement that the steps follow on, and what assumptions are being made. To say something is not logical because either you don't understand it or because it doesn't make sense to you makes "logic" subjective.
It's quite possible for one person to study biology and be inspired to believe in a creator and another to study it an come to the conclusion that things just evolved that way. Such a conclusion is not based on logic as such but more on interpretation.
The bible uses terms (some times literal terms, much like big-bangs 'explosion') To portray ideas, these ideas may be literal, and ment to be taken as word, but their description are given figurativly both for ease of comprehension.
And once again i will bring up the fact that we are basing this whole thing on an ancient language translated throughout history, and now we are so into nitty-gritty we are arguing about prose. Do you really think that language, prose, writing style, translations, words, meanings, vocabulary, grammer, human thought, hasnt change in 2000+ years ?
Please quote from the bible these "big-bang" terms you suggesting. I have been a student of God's Word for a long time and nowhere does it describe anything like the outrageous theory of the Big Bang.
Yes, language has changed over time. It is very fortunate though that the books that make up the bible were meticulously written down at the same times in a number of languages. I know it would be easier for you to assume that meaning or thoughts were lost but that simply is not the case.
Like I have said in this post, there are thousands of manuscripts starting from 20 years after the Death of Christ which detail these writings. No one manuscript is taken into its own account. Many hundreds were painstakingly compared for years before any translation was accomplished. So to answer your question.....all your language arguments do not stand up under scrutiny."Then God commanded 'let there be light'" - sounds like a explosive creation of the universe to me
Youll find that one on the first page.
But as a counter, can you actually show me a quote thats speaks directly of the creation of the UNIVERSE, and not just earth ?
But thats not my point, my point is that popular science has grabbed hold of the term 'big bang' and now most ppl think it means that the universe started in an explosion, which is not what the big bang theory says. Heres a verse for you:
Colossians 1:16
16 Forby Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Just to be clear about Christianity....Their beliefs are not going to be swayed by the latest "popular theory" made by science that is here today and gone tomorrow. "Science" changes their tune on some aspect related to the subjects we are talking about with each new find or discovery. There is no consistency with science--Only from God. Im afraid, you proved my point. Absolutly no mention of the universe in the passage, only the earth.
You see, back in ancient times, the concpet of a universe was completly foreign to people. There was no 'space', just heaven, hell and earth.
Thats pretty funny actually! So you think that a manmade word like "universe" that only came into being much later should be in the bible? How naive of you to think just because we use a word today that God himself should use it. Just for your information, many curse words that people use today are not in the bible and surprisingly enough.....the word e"volution" or "big-bang" is also not in there.
There is absolutely no passage in the bible that speak of when God created the universe, or even if he did actually create it in the first place.
But you have a very respected man of faith producing this "popular science" of the big bang
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe Interesting fact about the Bible, it was mostly psuedopigraphical. That is to say, the original authors used the names of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John to cover up their true identities. This was a fairly common practice among early Christians since discovery usually meant a very painful, and public, death. Furthermore, there are several non-canonical books of the Bible (Mary, Peter, Thomas, and Philip) that are recognized as being pseudopigraphical by both Christian and no-Christian scholars alike. For now, let's just focus on the first four books....
Actually what you have suggested is one of the Popular Muslim arguments about Christianity. Now I begin to question your motives with this argument…..
The non-canonical books you mention or the Gnostic “gospels” that didn’t start to appear until after 200AD. As you can see they are named for people who were long dead by that time written by anonymous writers who tried to give them authority by placing well-known names as their authors. The only real 4 gospels themselves were INDEED written by the authors they are named for. If you really know anything about Christianity during that time, then you would know that those early Christians were not in the least in fear of being killed. In fact, all the original apostles were killed for their beliefs. They were threatened throughout their entire ministry but still preached their message boldly.
Mark: written in the name of Mark, the disciple of the mythical Peter. Even in Christian mythology, Mark was not a disciple of Jesus, but a friend of Paul and Luke. Mark was written before Matthew and Luke (c. 100 C.E.) but after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., which it mentions. Most Christians believe it was written in c. 75 C.E. This date is not based on history but on the belief that an historical Mark wrote the gospel in his old age. This is not possible since the style of language used in Mark shows that it was written (probably in Rome) by a Roman convert to Christianity whose first language was Latin and not Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. ndeed, since all the other gospels are written in the name of legendary characters from the past, Mark was probably written long after any historical Mark (if there was one) had died. The content of Mark is a collection of myths and legends put together to form a continuous narrative. There is no evidence that it was based on any reliable historical sources. Mark was altered and edited many times and the modern version probably dates to about 150 C.E. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 C.E. - c. 215 C.E.) complained about the alternative versions of this gospel which were still circulating in his lifetime. (The Carpocratians, an early Christian sect, considered pederasty to be a virtue and Clement complained about their versions of Mark which told of Jesus's homosexual exploits with young boys!) Mathew: was certainly not written by the apostle Matthew. he Gospel of Matthew was originally anonymous and was only assigned the name Matthew some time during the first half of the second century C.E. The earliest form was probably written at more or less the same time as the Gospel of Luke (c. 100 C.E.), since neither seems to know of the other. It was altered and edited until about 150 C.E. The first two chapters, dealing with the virgin birth, were not in the original version and the Christians in Israel of Jewish descent preferred this earlier version. For its sources it used Mark and a collection of teachings referred to as the Second Source (or the Q Document). The Second Source has not survived as a separate document, but its full contents are found in Matthew and Luke. All the teachings contained in it can be found in Judaism. The more reasonable teachings can be found in mainstream Judaism, while the less reasonable ones can be found in sectarian Judaism. There is nothing in it which would require us to suppose the existence of a real historical Jesus. Although Matthew and Luke attribute the teachings in it to Jesus, the Epistle of James attributes them to James. Thus Matthew provides no historical evidence for Jesus. Luke: and the book of Acts (which were two parts of a single work) were written in the name of the Christian mythological character Luke the healer (who was probably not an historical person but a Christian adaptation of the Greek healer god Lykos). Even in Christian mythology, Luke was not a disciple of Jesus but a friend of Paul. Luke and Acts use Josephus's Jewish Antiquities as a reference, and so they could not have been written before 93 C.E. At this time, any friend of Paul would be either dead or well into senility. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian scholars agree that the earliest versions of the two books were written by an anonymous Christian in c. 100 C.E and were altered and edited until c. 150 - 175 C.E. Besides Josephus's book, Luke and Acts also use the Gospel of Mark and the Second Source as references. Although Josephus is considered to be more or less reliable, the anonymous author often misread and misunderstood Josephus and moreover, none of the information about Jesus in Luke and Acts comes from Josephus. Thus Luke and Acts are of no historical value. John: written in the name of the apostle John the brother of James, son of Zebedee. The author of Luke used as many sources as he could get hold of but he was unaware of John. Thus John more than likely could not have been written before Luke (c. 100 C.E.) Consequently John could not have been written by the semi-mythical character John the Apostle who was supposed to have been killed by Herod Agrippa shortly before his own death in 44 C.E. (John the Apostle is apparently based on an historical disciple of the false Messiah Theudas who was crucified by the Romans in 44 C.E. and whose disciples were murdered.) The real author of the Gospel of John was in fact an anonymous Christian from Ephesus in Asia Minor. The oldest surviving fragment of John dates to c. 125 C.E. and so we can date the gospel to c. 100 - 125 C.E. Based on stylistic considerations many scholars narrow down the date to c. 110 - 120 C.E. The earliest version of John did not contain the last chapter which deals with Jesus appearing to his disciples. Like the other gospels, John probably only attained its present form around 150 - 175 C.E. The author of John used Mark sparingly and so one suspects that he did not trust it. He either had not read Matthew and Luke or he did not trust them since he does not use any information from them which was not found in Mark. Most of John consists of legends with obvious underlying allegorical interpretations and one suspects that the author never intended them to be history. John does not contain any information from reliable historical sources. Christians will claim that the Gospel of John itself states that it is an historical document written by John. This claim is based on the verses John 19.34-35 and John 21.20 - 24. John 19.34-35 does not claim that the gospel was written by John. It claims that the events described in the immediately preceding verses were accurately reported by a witness. The passage is ambiguous and it is not clear whether the witness is supposed to be the same person as the author. Many scholars are of the opinion that the ambiguity is deliberate and that the author of John is trying to tease his readers in this passage as well as in the passages which tell miraculous stories with allegorical interpretations. John 21.20-24 also does not claim that the author is John. It claims that the disciple mentioned in the passage is the one who witnessed the events described. It is again notably ambiguous as regards the question of whether the disciple is the same person as the author. It should be noted that this passage is in the last chapter of John which was not part of the original gospel but was added on as an epilogue by an anonymous redactor. One should beware the fact that many "easy to understand" translations of the New Testament distort the passages mentioned so as to remove the ambiguity found in the original Greek. (Ideally one needs to be familiar with the original Greek text of the New Testament in order to avoid biased and distorted translations used by fundamentalist Christians.) In short, if you believe Christianity purely on faith, no one can touch you. It's when you try to claim "historical veracity" or "scientific proof" that you'll get knocked down. And rightfully so. Obviously, the Bible itself is not a reliable historical record, in and of itself.
I want to refute all these points in one section because it should be taken as a whole. All of the Gospels and the book of Acts have been recognized by numerous sources as being genuine by the ancient writers. If you study any of the writings by other contemporaries if the Apostles at/near the time of composition, this will be more clear to you. This proof alone is one of the strongest arguments for the authenticity of the gospels (and any ancient writing for that matter). If you don't believe me, go ask any scholar who works to restore ancient writings. This is one of the most prominent means used by historians to prove that a particular work came from a certain author.
When the scholars and historians used these procedures to determine the Gospels authenticity, the results completely supported this authenticity. Specifically, I will mention the 4 Gospels and the book of Acts because Acts picks up where Luke left off and is the second part to his work.
In the Epistle of Barnabas (collection of letters by Paul’s cohort to the new churches at the time) (written on/near 120 A.D.) he is seen quoting Matthew as Scripture. I have a book co-authored by Westcott @ Hort (2 individuals who compiled all the biblical texts into 1 Greek text)that have some scanned images of these epistles. Also, Clement of Rome (in 90 A.D.) quotes some passages found in Matthew. A very important extra-biblical sourceis Ignatius (a church leader in Antioch about 37 years after Christ's death. This would have dated to about 70AD. In his writings he mentions the work of both Matthew John. Furthermore, his contemporary Polycarp (who knew personally the disciple John and other eywitnesses to Jesus' ministry) refers to these early New Testament works over forty times. Papias was another who also knew John. He specifically SAYS Matthew and Mark wrote their Gospels. What is remarkable is the way in which he stated it in his writing—He said it in an offhand way that shows that it was a fact generally known. Another source was Justin Martyr (around 90 AD). His writings frequently quote 3 of the Gospels. Finally, Irenaeus (who knew Polycarp) specifically names the four Gospel writers.
As you can see these men had nothing to gain at all by acknowledging the truth of this matter. This was simple correspondence of the day. However, these men have definitely been authenticated and obviously many of their writings have been preserved.
I am truly sorry if you have been misled somehow in your research and I hope that you readthese
writings for yourself. Some of your information is incorrect or may not include thelatest finds of
some of these manuscripts. The oldest fragment of the Gospel we actually haveis the Gospel of
John dated from 70-80 AD. It is true though that indeed Mark was written first. Luke was not
some mythical guy. He is mentioned many times in extra-biblical correspondence which is available
to you. Mark was a close friend of Peter (who of course was in Christ’s inner circle). Of course John
was also with James and Peter in Christ’s inner circle. These guys were very real and that has been documented. Of course like many today if you start out with a bias against the bible nothing will
This is very simple. If the aetheists/agnostics have it right then the Christians suffer no loss upon death. Nor does anyone for that matter.
However, if the Christians have it right (and I wager they do) then the non-believers stand to lose a great deal (eternal grief and bad things).
Now I know some of you get your panties in wad when you are given so simple an ultimatum of how things are gonna be upon your individual demise. So flame away.
Not one of us whose eyes read this post can control the fact of whether or not Christ exists. Not one. He either does or does not. The fact is set.
However we all can choose whether or not to believe in Him and what he has done for us.
For me the choice was and remains clear to this day.
Im afraid, you proved my point. Absolutly no mention of the universe in the passage, only the earth.
You see, back in ancient times, the concpet of a universe was completly foreign to people. There was no 'space', just heaven, hell and earth.
Thats pretty funny actually! So you think that a manmade word like "universe" that only came into being much later should be in the bible? How naive of you to think just because we use a word today that God himself should use it. Just for your information, many curse words that people use today are not in the bible and surprisingly enough.....the word e"volution" or "big-bang" is also not in there.
Nor is there any mention of its creation, only the creation of the earth, it is quite specific about that. VERY specific, it uses the man made term World, and im sure if an all knowing entity wanted us to know something, he would have used the correct word.
The words computer and electricity arnt in there either, does that mean they dont exist ?
Actually, the term that God chooses to use for the Universe is "Heavens". It is quite obvious that you are not near as familiar with God's Word as you should be before you attempt to refute it.
There is absolutely no passage in the bible that speak of when God created the universe, or even if he did actually create it in the first place.
But you have a very respected man of faith producing this "popular science" of the big bang
Comments
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
So the book of genesis is written in both the literal and metaphoric prose ?
How could he have known how long it took if he hadn't even created time yet (darkness was the first thing he created from memory) and how could he apply that time to a entity that does not exist in time ? Well thats an unfair question, only god can answer that. But what is your thought on that sentiment ?
How would you like me to answer that? He's God...he can create time if he so wishes, the fact that he is not subject to the constraints of time does not mean that he couldn't create it for us to live in.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Change my mind so much I can't even trust it
My mind change me so much I can't even trust myself
The Big MMORPG List
So the book of genesis is written in both the literal and metaphoric prose ?
How could he have known how long it took if he hadn't even created time yet (darkness was the first thing he created from memory) and how could he apply that time to a entity that does not exist in time ? Well thats an unfair question, only god can answer that. But what is your thought on that sentiment ?
How would you like me to answer that? He's God...he can create time if he so wishes, the fact that he is not subject to the constraints of time does not mean that he couldn't create it for us to live in.
Thats not my question, my question is how could it be possible for someone, who exists out side of time, to quantasize time before he has even created it ?
And no, i am talking about continental drift, not the flood of the grand canyon
I'm not sure how you can't come to that answer for yourself...if you know what Christians believe about God then you know that it is believed that he is completely in control of everything, so how would a creation of something like time be any different for him?
Infliction: If you want to use circular logic that God is not scientific, therefore nothing having to do with God can be a theory, therefore science can't involve God, then there is nothing that I can do to debate you. Personally, I think that science should be coming up with the most logical conclusions period...not the most logical conclusions sans God.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
So the book of genesis is written in both the literal and metaphoric prose ?
How could he have known how long it took if he hadn't even created time yet (darkness was the first thing he created from memory) and how could he apply that time to a entity that does not exist in time ? Well thats an unfair question, only god can answer that. But what is your thought on that sentiment ?
How would you like me to answer that? He's God...he can create time if he so wishes, the fact that he is not subject to the constraints of time does not mean that he couldn't create it for us to live in.
Thats not my question, my question is how could it be possible for someone, who exists out side of time, to quantasize time before he has even created it ?
And no, i am talking about continental drift, not the flood of the grand canyon
I'm not sure how you can't come to that answer for yourself...if you know what Christians believe about God then you know that it is believed that he is completely in control of everything, so how would a creation of something like time be any different for him?
Infliction: If you want to use circular logic that God is not scientific, therefore nothing having to do with God can be a theory, therefore science can't involve God, then there is nothing that I can do to debate you. Personally, I think that science should be coming up with the most logical conclusions period...not the most logical conclusions sans God.
I could say that bunny rabbits are able to travel to other dimensions and that they themselves created the universe, and that would be exactly as logical as saying God created everything. That being said, its not logical at all, and nothing is less logical than the idea of such, no matter how ridiculous or how many people believe in it.Whereas of course it is perfectly logical that an uncreated universe just happened by itself, and just happened to work in an ordered way and humans developed with a brain capacity far more advanced than they ever used.
That's just a great example of "logic" just being an opinion.
Whereas of course it is perfectly logical that an uncreated universe just happened by itself, and just happened to work in an ordered way and humans developed with a brain capacity far more advanced than they ever used.
That's just a great example of "logic" just being an opinion.
So if human logic is so subjective and limited with regards to the origin of the universe, why even attempt to argue one way or the other?For all we know, our understanding of time is elementary, and the universe may not have a beginning or an end as we understand it. On the flip side, maybe some higher being did do all of this. The only reason I lean towards the former is because humans are way too primitive for such a powerful entity to give a damn about us. But since I recognize the fact that I'm insignificant in the big picture, I accept the fact that I don't have any idea how it all came to be, and to jump to a conclusion would be baseless.
Who knows how it all started? Both of the current explanations are laughable.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
Logic should really be a way for allowing people to agree over something. We should be able to look at an argument and come to an agreement that the steps follow on, and what assumptions are being made. To say something is not logical because either you don't understand it or because it doesn't make sense to you makes "logic" subjective.
It's quite possible for one person to study biology and be inspired to believe in a creator and another to study it an come to the conclusion that things just evolved that way. Such a conclusion is not based on logic as such but more on interpretation.
I'm actually kind of with you on this, Nasica. For me, while it's possible that it happened exactly how Genesis portrays it,I'm not sure the Bible was trying to give an accurate scientific explanation, but as you say, putting things into terms that could be understood and understood by people thousands of years ago. The language needed to describe how God created the universe probably didn't even exist then or maybe not even now and may well need a library of books to describe.
I do notice a lot of people putting exactly the same kind of faith in science. In this area, some of it is theory, much of it is mere hypothesis, and yet many people seem to be convinced that there's enough there to somehow show that a creator God of some kind was not involved. I've even seen people state with confidence that science will in time prove that God doesn't exist. Now, that's faith for you
.
Logic should really be a way for allowing people to agree over something. We should be able to look at an argument and come to an agreement that the steps follow on, and what assumptions are being made. To say something is not logical because either you don't understand it or because it doesn't make sense to you makes "logic" subjective.
It's quite possible for one person to study biology and be inspired to believe in a creator and another to study it an come to the conclusion that things just evolved that way. Such a conclusion is not based on logic as such but more on interpretation.
The bible uses terms (some times literal terms, much like big-bangs 'explosion') To portray ideas, these ideas may be literal, and ment to be taken as word, but their description are given figurativly both for ease of comprehension.And once again i will bring up the fact that we are basing this whole thing on an ancient language translated throughout history, and now we are so into nitty-gritty we are arguing about prose. Do you really think that language, prose, writing style, translations, words, meanings, vocabulary, grammer, human thought, hasnt change in 2000+ years ?
Please quote from the bible these "big-bang" terms you suggesting. I have been a student of God's Word for a long time and nowhere does it describe anything like the outrageous theory of the Big Bang.
Yes, language has changed over time. It is very fortunate though that the books that make up the bible were meticulously written down at the same times in a number of languages. I know it would be easier for you to assume that meaning or thoughts were lost but that simply is not the case.
Like I have said in this post, there are thousands of manuscripts starting from 20 years after the Death of Christ which detail these writings. No one manuscript is taken into its own account. Many hundreds were painstakingly compared for years before any translation was accomplished. So to answer your question.....all your language arguments do not stand up under scrutiny.
On Time? On Target? Never Quit?
Logic should really be a way for allowing people to agree over something. We should be able to look at an argument and come to an agreement that the steps follow on, and what assumptions are being made. To say something is not logical because either you don't understand it or because it doesn't make sense to you makes "logic" subjective.
It's quite possible for one person to study biology and be inspired to believe in a creator and another to study it an come to the conclusion that things just evolved that way. Such a conclusion is not based on logic as such but more on interpretation.
The bible uses terms (some times literal terms, much like big-bangs 'explosion') To portray ideas, these ideas may be literal, and ment to be taken as word, but their description are given figurativly both for ease of comprehension.And once again i will bring up the fact that we are basing this whole thing on an ancient language translated throughout history, and now we are so into nitty-gritty we are arguing about prose. Do you really think that language, prose, writing style, translations, words, meanings, vocabulary, grammer, human thought, hasnt change in 2000+ years ?
Please quote from the bible these "big-bang" terms you suggesting. I have been a student of God's Word for a long time and nowhere does it describe anything like the outrageous theory of the Big Bang.
Yes, language has changed over time. It is very fortunate though that the books that make up the bible were meticulously written down at the same times in a number of languages. I know it would be easier for you to assume that meaning or thoughts were lost but that simply is not the case.
Like I have said in this post, there are thousands of manuscripts starting from 20 years after the Death of Christ which detail these writings. No one manuscript is taken into its own account. Many hundreds were painstakingly compared for years before any translation was accomplished. So to answer your question.....all your language arguments do not stand up under scrutiny."Then God commanded 'let there be light'" - sounds like a explosive creation of the universe to me
Youll find that one on the first page.
But as a counter, can you actually show me a quote thats speaks directly of the creation of the UNIVERSE, and not just earth ?
But thats not my point, my point is that popular science has grabbed hold of the term 'big bang' and now most ppl think it means that the universe started in an explosion, which is not what the big bang theory says. Heres a verse for you:
Colossians 1:16
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.Just to be clear about Christianity....Their beliefs are not going to be swayed by the latest "popular theory" made by science that is here today and gone tomorrow. "Science" changes their tune on some aspect related to the subjects we are talking about with each new find or discovery. There is no consistency with science--Only from God.
Interesting fact about the Bible, it was mostly psuedopigraphical. That is to say, the original authors used the names of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John to cover up their true identities. This was a fairly common practice among early Christians since discovery usually meant a very painful, and public, death. Furthermore, there are several non-canonical books of the Bible (Mary, Peter, Thomas, and Philip) that are recognized as being pseudopigraphical by both Christian and no-Christian scholars alike. For now, let's just focus on the first four books....
Mark: written in the name of Mark, the disciple of the mythical Peter. Even in Christian mythology, Mark was not a disciple of Jesus, but a friend of Paul and Luke. Mark was written before Matthew and Luke (c. 100 C.E.) but after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., which it mentions. Most Christians believe it was written in c. 75 C.E. This date is not based on history but on the belief that an historical Mark wrote the gospel in his old age. This is not possible since the style of language used in Mark shows that it was written (probably in Rome) by a Roman convert to Christianity whose first language was Latin and not Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. ndeed, since all the other gospels are written in the name of legendary characters from the past, Mark was probably written long after any historical Mark (if there was one) had died. The content of Mark is a collection of myths and legends put together to form a continuous narrative. There is no evidence that it was based on any reliable historical sources. Mark was altered and edited many times and the modern version probably dates to about 150 C.E. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 C.E. - c. 215 C.E.) complained about the alternative versions of this gospel which were still circulating in his lifetime. (The Carpocratians, an early Christian sect, considered pederasty to be a virtue and Clement complained about their versions of Mark which told of Jesus's homosexual exploits with young boys!)
Mathew: was certainly not written by the apostle Matthew. he Gospel of Matthew was originally anonymous and was only assigned the name Matthew some time during the first half of the second century C.E. The earliest form was probably written at more or less the same time as the Gospel of Luke (c. 100 C.E.), since neither seems to know of the other. It was altered and edited until about 150 C.E. The first two chapters, dealing with the virgin birth, were not in the original version and the Christians in Israel of Jewish descent preferred this earlier version. For its sources it used Mark and a collection of teachings referred to as the Second Source (or the Q Document). The Second Source has not survived as a separate document, but its full contents are found in Matthew and Luke. All the teachings contained in it can be found in Judaism. The more reasonable teachings can be found in mainstream Judaism, while the less reasonable ones can be found in sectarian Judaism. There is nothing in it which would require us to suppose the existence of a real historical Jesus. Although Matthew and Luke attribute the teachings in it to Jesus, the Epistle of James attributes them to James. Thus Matthew provides no historical evidence for Jesus.
Luke: and the book of Acts (which were two parts of a single work) were written in the name of the Christian mythological character Luke the healer (who was probably not an historical person but a Christian adaptation of the Greek healer god Lykos). Even in Christian mythology, Luke was not a disciple of Jesus but a friend of Paul. Luke and Acts use Josephus's Jewish Antiquities as a reference, and so they could not have been written before 93 C.E. At this time, any friend of Paul would be either dead or well into senility. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian scholars agree that the earliest versions of the two books were written by an anonymous Christian in c. 100 C.E and were altered and edited until c. 150 - 175 C.E. Besides Josephus's book, Luke and Acts also use the Gospel of Mark and the Second Source as references. Although Josephus is considered to be more or less reliable, the anonymous author often misread and misunderstood Josephus and moreover, none of the information about Jesus in Luke and Acts comes from Josephus. Thus Luke and Acts are of no historical value.
John: written in the name of the apostle John the brother of James, son of Zebedee. The author of Luke used as many sources as he could get hold of but he was unaware of John. Thus John more than likely could not have been written before Luke (c. 100 C.E.) Consequently John could not have been written by the semi-mythical character John the Apostle who was supposed to have been killed by Herod Agrippa shortly before his own death in 44 C.E. (John the Apostle is apparently based on an historical disciple of the false Messiah Theudas who was crucified by the Romans in 44 C.E. and whose disciples were murdered.) The real author of the Gospel of John was in fact an anonymous Christian from Ephesus in Asia Minor. The oldest surviving fragment of John dates to c. 125 C.E. and so we can date the gospel to c. 100 - 125 C.E. Based on stylistic considerations many scholars narrow down the date to c. 110 - 120 C.E. The earliest version of John did not contain the last chapter which deals with Jesus appearing to his disciples. Like the other gospels, John probably only attained its present form around 150 - 175 C.E. The author of John used Mark sparingly and so one suspects that he did not trust it. He either had not read Matthew and Luke or he did not trust them since he does not use any information from them which was not found in Mark. Most of John consists of legends with obvious underlying allegorical interpretations and one suspects that the author never intended them to be history. John does not contain any information from reliable historical sources.
Christians will claim that the Gospel of John itself states that it is an historical document written by John. This claim is based on the verses John 19.34-35 and John 21.20 - 24. John 19.34-35 does not claim that the gospel was written by John. It claims that the events described in the immediately preceding verses were accurately reported by a witness. The passage is ambiguous and it is not clear whether the witness is supposed to be the same person as the author. Many scholars are of the opinion that the ambiguity is deliberate and that the author of John is trying to tease his readers in this passage as well as in the passages which tell miraculous stories with allegorical interpretations. John 21.20-24 also does not claim that the author is John. It claims that the disciple mentioned in the passage is the one who witnessed the events described. It is again notably ambiguous as regards the question of whether the disciple is the same person as the author. It should be noted that this passage is in the last chapter of John which was not part of the original gospel but was added on as an epilogue by an anonymous redactor. One should beware the fact that many "easy to understand" translations of the New Testament distort the passages mentioned so as to remove the ambiguity found in the original Greek. (Ideally one needs to be familiar with the original Greek text of the New Testament in order to avoid biased and distorted translations used by fundamentalist Christians.)
In short, if you believe Christianity purely on faith, no one can touch you. It's when you try to claim "historical veracity" or "scientific proof" that you'll get knocked down. And rightfully so.
Obviously, the Bible itself is not a reliable historical record, in and of itself.
Logic should really be a way for allowing people to agree over something. We should be able to look at an argument and come to an agreement that the steps follow on, and what assumptions are being made. To say something is not logical because either you don't understand it or because it doesn't make sense to you makes "logic" subjective.
It's quite possible for one person to study biology and be inspired to believe in a creator and another to study it an come to the conclusion that things just evolved that way. Such a conclusion is not based on logic as such but more on interpretation.
The bible uses terms (some times literal terms, much like big-bangs 'explosion') To portray ideas, these ideas may be literal, and ment to be taken as word, but their description are given figurativly both for ease of comprehension.And once again i will bring up the fact that we are basing this whole thing on an ancient language translated throughout history, and now we are so into nitty-gritty we are arguing about prose. Do you really think that language, prose, writing style, translations, words, meanings, vocabulary, grammer, human thought, hasnt change in 2000+ years ?
Please quote from the bible these "big-bang" terms you suggesting. I have been a student of God's Word for a long time and nowhere does it describe anything like the outrageous theory of the Big Bang.
Yes, language has changed over time. It is very fortunate though that the books that make up the bible were meticulously written down at the same times in a number of languages. I know it would be easier for you to assume that meaning or thoughts were lost but that simply is not the case.
Like I have said in this post, there are thousands of manuscripts starting from 20 years after the Death of Christ which detail these writings. No one manuscript is taken into its own account. Many hundreds were painstakingly compared for years before any translation was accomplished. So to answer your question.....all your language arguments do not stand up under scrutiny."Then God commanded 'let there be light'" - sounds like a explosive creation of the universe to me
Youll find that one on the first page.
But as a counter, can you actually show me a quote thats speaks directly of the creation of the UNIVERSE, and not just earth ?
But thats not my point, my point is that popular science has grabbed hold of the term 'big bang' and now most ppl think it means that the universe started in an explosion, which is not what the big bang theory says. Heres a verse for you:
Colossians 1:16
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.Just to be clear about Christianity....Their beliefs are not going to be swayed by the latest "popular theory" made by science that is here today and gone tomorrow. "Science" changes their tune on some aspect related to the subjects we are talking about with each new find or discovery. There is no consistency with science--Only from God. Im afraid, you proved my point. Absolutly no mention of the universe in the passage, only the earth.
You see, back in ancient times, the concpet of a universe was completly foreign to people. There was no 'space', just heaven, hell and earth.
Thats pretty funny actually! So you think that a manmade word like "universe" that only came into being much later should be in the bible? How naive of you to think just because we use a word today that God himself should use it. Just for your information, many curse words that people use today are not in the bible and surprisingly enough.....the word e"volution" or "big-bang" is also not in there.
There is absolutely no passage in the bible that speak of when God created the universe, or even if he did actually create it in the first place.
But you have a very respected man of faith producing this "popular science" of the big bang
"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître" title="Georges Lema
When the scholars and historians used these procedures to determine the Gospels authenticity, theresults completely supported this authenticity. Specifically, I will mention the 4 Gospels and the
book of Acts because Acts picks up where Luke left off and is the second part to his work.
writings for yourself. Some of your information is incorrect or may not include thelatest finds of
some of these manuscripts. The oldest fragment of the Gospel we actually haveis the Gospel of
John dated from 70-80 AD. It is true though that indeed Mark was written first. Luke was not
some mythical guy. He is mentioned many times in extra-biblical correspondence which is available
to you. Mark was a close friend of Peter (who of course was in Christ’s inner circle). Of course John
was also with James and Peter in Christ’s inner circle. These guys were very real and that has been documented. Of course like many today if you start out with a bias against the bible nothing will
convince you.
Pascal's Wager
This is very simple. If the aetheists/agnostics have it right then the Christians suffer no loss upon death. Nor does anyone for that matter.
However, if the Christians have it right (and I wager they do) then the non-believers stand to lose a great deal (eternal grief and bad things).
Now I know some of you get your panties in wad when you are given so simple an ultimatum of how things are gonna be upon your individual demise. So flame away.
Not one of us whose eyes read this post can control the fact of whether or not Christ exists. Not one. He either does or does not. The fact is set.
However we all can choose whether or not to believe in Him and what he has done for us.
For me the choice was and remains clear to this day.
Thank you for your time.