| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"James" |
| Date: |
21 Dec 2006 10:57:01 AM |
| Object: |
Re: God made man, not a sperm |
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Re: God made man, not a sperm
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
When Christians talk about the 1 week creation of the world, old-earth
theorists say that the earth appears too old for its creation to be a
few thousand years old.
This is easy to answer with a simple question. Did God make man or a
sperm on that first day? Scripture says that God took soil and His own
breath and made a man (not a sperm). Then, God took Adam's rib and
made a woman (not an egg). The point? On the day God made man, he was
less than a day old, yet he appeared decades old in age. What makes us
think the world would be any different?
The common sense to realize that the Genesis story is a myth and not a
factual history report by eyewitnesses.
lojbab
lojbab,
But much of the Genesis account is in harmony with true science, thus
helping to negate claims of 'myth'. Here was my response to the
poster:
"Ken,
There is no reason for God to make a 'young earth' take on the
appearance of an 'old earth' etc in order to deceive us or something.
But there was a reason for God to make a one day old person, Adam,
appear to be a young adult. Older persons can carry on conversations,
also they have the developed powers of procreation etc, which is one
of God's commands to them. (Ge 1:28) So God skipped their childhood
since it was not needed in order to fulfill God's requirements for
them.
And the Bible is in fully harmony with humans existing for only
thousands of years, but the earth and universe for billions of years.
It has to do with what you consider is part of the "first day". If it
is computed one way, you must have a young earth and universe, and
young humans. If it is computed another way you get an indeterminate
earth and universe age, and young humans. The latter fits in more with
present day science, than the former. (more details on how those two
methods are computed, if you are interested)
True, science does not like the 'young human' scenario from either
method, since they claim to have human fossils that are millions of
years old etc. But thy need to step back and look at the bulk of the
human fossil and archeological evidence. The bulk of human
civilizations can be traced by several thousand years, not hundreds of
thousands, or millions of years.
So either humans had little or no progression for millions of years,
and then BOOM, suddenly became 'smart' and 'civilized' several
thousand years ago, or humans progressed in a normal fashion from the
time they were created, several thousand years ago. And the mass of
the archeological evidence points to the latter. (such as the ancient
Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, etc.)
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************"
.
|
|
| User: "rjbjr" |
|
| Title: Re: God made man, not a sperm |
22 Dec 2006 07:25:51 AM |
|
|
"James" <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:dtelo21sug0tinbor0hg7qnhn5ao822tbn@4ax.com...
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Re: God made man, not a sperm
But much of the Genesis account is in harmony with true science, thus
helping to negate claims of 'myth'. Here was my response to the
poster:
And the Bible is in fully harmony with humans existing for only
thousands of years, but the earth and universe for billions of years.
It has to do with what you consider is part of the "first day". If it
is computed one way, you must have a young earth and universe, and
young humans. If it is computed another way you get an indeterminate
earth and universe age, and young humans. The latter fits in more with
present day science, than the former. (more details on how those two
methods are computed, if you are interested)
James,
You might want to check out "The Science of God" by G. Schroeder. He goes
into a lot of detail to explain how the 15 billion year estimate of science
for the age of the universe is in total agreement with the Genesis account.
All you have to do is to realize that the days of Genesis prior to man are
from a universal perspective, not from man's perspective, since no man
existed during that time.
If, you time the steps of creation as described in Genesis using Schroeder's
"cosmic clock" that starts ticking with the formation of matter in the
universe, the whole process takes 6 days. Genesis is correct and there is
no conflict with the science of our day.
Using this cosmic clock, the appearance of prehumans also agrees with the
timing of the fossil record. Notice that Genesis talks about the appearance
of two kinds of man in two verses. One man is "made" and the second is
"created". This matches the fossil record where we have animals in human
form, but without the "spirit" God "created" in the Adam. It's amazing that
the Bible, written thousands of years before science even existed, got it
right.
To properly understand what the Bible says in Genesis we need to combine
science with the Biblical teachings. Genesis 1 is the perfect example of
what you have pointed out is the meaning of 1Th 5:21 - "prove all
things....". God want us to seek the Truth, the real Truth in his amazing
Book.
Bob
True, science does not like the 'young human' scenario from either
method, since they claim to have human fossils that are millions of
years old etc. But thy need to step back and look at the bulk of the
human fossil and archeological evidence. The bulk of human
civilizations can be traced by several thousand years, not hundreds of
thousands, or millions of years.
So either humans had little or no progression for millions of years,
and then BOOM, suddenly became 'smart' and 'civilized' several
thousand years ago, or humans progressed in a normal fashion from the
time they were created, several thousand years ago. And the mass of
the archeological evidence points to the latter. (such as the ancient
Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, etc.)
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: God made man, not a sperm |
22 Dec 2006 03:06:18 PM |
|
|
rjbjr wrote:
"James" <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:dtelo21sug0tinbor0hg7qnhn5ao822tbn@4ax.com...
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Re: God made man, not a sperm
But much of the Genesis account is in harmony with true science, thus
helping to negate claims of 'myth'. Here was my response to the
poster:
And the Bible is in fully harmony with humans existing for only
thousands of years, but the earth and universe for billions of years.
It has to do with what you consider is part of the "first day". If it
is computed one way, you must have a young earth and universe, and
young humans. If it is computed another way you get an indeterminate
earth and universe age, and young humans. The latter fits in more with
present day science, than the former. (more details on how those two
methods are computed, if you are interested)
James,
You might want to check out "The Science of God" by G. Schroeder. He goes
into a lot of detail to explain how the 15 billion year estimate of science
for the age of the universe is in total agreement with the Genesis account.
===>Whioch is totally ridiculous.
Just an attempt to overcome someone's cognitive dissonance.
The Genesis fable beginns with the watery EARTH!
And the Earth is NOT 15 billion years old!
All you have to do is to realize that the days of Genesis prior to man are
from a universal perspective, not from man's perspective, since no man
existed during that time.
===>"EVENING AND MORNING" means one 24-hr day.
If, you time the steps of creation as described in Genesis using Schroeder's
"cosmic clock" that starts ticking with the formation of matter in the
universe, the whole process takes 6 days.
===>More didiculous nonsense.
- The universe did not start out from a formless, watery mass, as
described in Genesis.
- The Earth is not covered by a solid sky dome.
- The Sun, Moon and Stars are not big and little lights affixed
to that solid dome.
And, of course, the "universe" does not consist of the above
described earth covered by a star-studded sky dome.
Genesis is correct and there is
no conflict with the science of our day.
===>Nonsense.
Using this cosmic clock, the appearance of prehumans also agrees with the
timing of the fossil record. Notice that Genesis talks about the appearance
of two kinds of man in two verses.
===>MORE ridiculous absurdity.
Genesis 1 & 2ff contain two totally distinct creation fables.
One man is "made" and the second is
"created". This matches the fossil record where we have animals in human
form, but without the "spirit" God "created" in the Adam.
===>How ridiculous! It is the FIRST story that says humans were made
"in the image and likeness" of the ELOHIM! And there is no dfifference
between "made" and "created".
It's amazing that
the Bible, written thousands of years before science even existed, got it
right.
To properly understand what the Bible says in Genesis we need to combine
science with the Biblical teachings.
===>That is just a dumb attempt by your Shroeder at making ancient
fables sound real, because he realizes those fables are just that, but
wishes to insist that it is revealed divine truth.
People like you are willing to fall for such ridiculous efforts because
you are committed to the BIG LIE that it is the "word of God".
It is not.
The Bible is just the writings of some HUMANS expressing their own
diverse and contradictory ideas, opinions, speculations and fantasies,
selected, edited and compiled by other HUMANS in a book.
He even falsifies his own Bible, with things like quoting
e.g. Gen. 1:12 as "and the earth brought forth life." In fact the text
says only that "the land brought forth vegetation."
But he makes some even more serious errors in science.
SEE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BETA ARTICLE AT
http://experts.about.com/e/g/ge/gerald_schroeder.htm
"by choosing a frame of reference in this way using a different moment,
and so a different gravitational environment, the six days may in fact
be expanded into 100 billion years, a million years, or indeed any other
period of time. Further, they argue that the formulation of the argument
in fact requires the existence of absolute time, in direct violation of
the Theory of Relativity.[1] Other serious factual errors have also been
pointed out in his works, including assertions that:
*Masers fire atoms
*Kinetic energy is proportional to velocity
*Diffraction does not occur if the opening is larger than the wavelength
*Mass and weight are the same (he does not claim this, see Science of
God p. 48)
*Heat may be diluted by expansion
*hf = mc^2 (The left hand side is a variable, dependent on the
particle's velocity, while the right is a constant)
*Darwin believed in the inheritance traits acquired through a single
organism's life.
One of his most outspoken critics Mark Perakh said:"To satisfy the
requirements of the special theory of relativity, as per Schroeder's
explanation, we have to accept that, first, God is a physical body,
second, that it is a body which occupies a certain localized volume in
space, and third, to imagine that, during the six days of creation, the
Creator was rushing at an enormous speed past the universe he was
creating. What would then remain from the concept of the omnipresent
non-material God?"
So much for that. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rjbjr" |
|
| Title: Re: God made man, not a sperm |
23 Dec 2006 08:26:17 AM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:kdKdnUUHyK9Y1RHYnZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@comcast.com...
rjbjr wrote:
"James" <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:dtelo21sug0tinbor0hg7qnhn5ao822tbn@4ax.com...
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Re: God made man, not a sperm
But much of the Genesis account is in harmony with true science, thus
helping to negate claims of 'myth'. Here was my response to the
poster:
And the Bible is in fully harmony with humans existing for only
thousands of years, but the earth and universe for billions of years.
It has to do with what you consider is part of the "first day". If it
is computed one way, you must have a young earth and universe, and
young humans. If it is computed another way you get an indeterminate
earth and universe age, and young humans. The latter fits in more with
present day science, than the former. (more details on how those two
methods are computed, if you are interested)
James,
You might want to check out "The Science of God" by G. Schroeder. He
goes
into a lot of detail to explain how the 15 billion year estimate of
science
for the age of the universe is in total agreement with the Genesis
account.
===>Whioch is totally ridiculous.
Just an attempt to overcome someone's cognitive dissonance.
The Genesis fable beginns with the watery EARTH!
And the Earth is NOT 15 billion years old!
Mr L. Excuse me. Stuck on YOUR interpretation? The material that makes up
the earth was indeed formed 15 billion years ago according to science. At
that time, the earth was "formless and empty" just as Genesis states.
All you have to do is to realize that the days of Genesis prior to man
are
from a universal perspective, not from man's perspective, since no man
existed during that time.
===>"EVENING AND MORNING" means one 24-hr day.
Mr. L. Yes. You are correct. And, Schroeder agrees that the first day is
24 hours. But, who's 24 hours? I suppose YOU mean 24 earth hours. But the
earth didn't exist on the first day. There wasn't even a place in the
universe for the earth on that first day. It wouldn't make sense to measure
those first 24 hours with earth time. I'm sure you would agree.
If, you time the steps of creation as described in Genesis using
Schroeder's
"cosmic clock" that starts ticking with the formation of matter in the
universe, the whole process takes 6 days.
===>More didiculous nonsense.
- The universe did not start out from a formless, watery mass, as
described in Genesis.
- The Earth is not covered by a solid sky dome.
- The Sun, Moon and Stars are not big and little lights affixed
to that solid dome.
Mr L. A solid sky dome? Where do you read that? Perhaps you could provide
a verse for reference.
And, of course, the "universe" does not consist of the above
described earth covered by a star-studded sky dome.
Genesis is correct and there is
no conflict with the science of our day.
===>Nonsense.
Using this cosmic clock, the appearance of prehumans also agrees with
the
timing of the fossil record. Notice that Genesis talks about the
appearance
of two kinds of man in two verses.
===>MORE ridiculous absurdity.
Genesis 1 & 2ff contain two totally distinct creation fables.
One man is "made" and the second is
"created". This matches the fossil record where we have animals in
human
form, but without the "spirit" God "created" in the Adam.
===>How ridiculous! It is the FIRST story that says humans were made
"in the image and likeness" of the ELOHIM! And there is no dfifference
between "made" and "created".
Mr. L. Some statement! Are you and expert in ancient Hebrew? With a
little googling, you'll find linguists do see a difference. So why are two
different verbs used? And, do I understand your interpretation of "in the
image and likeness" means exactly like GOD? I don't think so. We are
familiar with images and likenesses in paintings and photos, two dimensional
representations of three dimensional things. An image is a lesser
dimensional representation of an original higher dimensional object.
Perhaps this is a hint that God is more than a 3 dimensional entity. Kind
of agrees with String Theory don't you think? And images don't contain the
"spirit" of the original. The first "men" didn't have that "spirit". It's
only later that God breathes that into the Adam.
Perhaps you can tell me what YOU think the phrase means?
Even in Genesis 1, there are two verses devoted to man. The first verse
talks about "making". The second talks about "CREATING man". Schroeder
points out, Jewish traditional interpretations going back hundreds of years
saw real significance in the two different verbs used and concluded there
were "souless" men who existed before God "created" something new and
different - man with a soul.
It's amazing that
the Bible, written thousands of years before science even existed, got
it
right.
To properly understand what the Bible says in Genesis we need to combine
science with the Biblical teachings.
===>That is just a dumb attempt by your Shroeder at making ancient
fables sound real, because he realizes those fables are just that, but
wishes to insist that it is revealed divine truth.
Mr. L. I disagree. Discovery is a process of being able to see things in
our universe from a new, different perspective than what most people see.
That's what Schroeder has done with Genesis. Traditional interpretations of
the six earth days of creation disagree with science. Rather than reject
the science, Schroeder questions the traditional interpretations.
This is not unlike what Einstein did when he "discovered" the theory of
relativity. Science, with the Michelson-Morely experiment, showed that the
speed of light is contant regardless of speed. That experiment showed
scientifically that traditional scientific interpretation was incorrect.
Einstein understood that to explain the experiment, the traditional concept
of a fixed, universal time had to change.
Similarly, Schoeder has shown that traditional interpretations of Genesis
has to change. Once Einstein changed the concept of time, physics once
again made scientific sense. Once Schroeder changed the perspective of the
first six days of creation, Genesis makes scientific sense.
People like you are willing to fall for such ridiculous efforts because
you are committed to the BIG LIE that it is the "word of God".
It is not.
And people like you will ignore any evidence for God. Hard for me to
understand. Perhaps you are a direct descendent of the first men of Genesis
26. Your genes may have never mixed in with the men "created" in Genesis
27?
The Bible is just the writings of some HUMANS expressing their own
diverse and contradictory ideas, opinions, speculations and fantasies,
selected, edited and compiled by other HUMANS in a book.
He even falsifies his own Bible, with things like quoting
e.g. Gen. 1:12 as "and the earth brought forth life." In fact the text
says only that "the land brought forth vegetation."
Mr. L. Still more of your interpretations? Your quote does not match some
translations either. Perhaps you are confusing verse 12 with verse 24? I'm
sure you notice and are impressed also, that the verses imply a process -
some kind of evolution in the development of both plants and the animals.
Seems to match what we believe from the science of our day doesn't it?
Pretty amazing for some HUMAN in the mideast desert thousands of years ago
don't you think?
But he makes some even more serious errors in science.
SEE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BETA ARTICLE AT
http://experts.about.com/e/g/ge/gerald_schroeder.htm
"by choosing a frame of reference in this way using a different moment,
and so a different gravitational environment, the six days may in fact
be expanded into 100 billion years, a million years, or indeed any other
period of time. Further, they argue that the formulation of the argument
in fact requires the existence of absolute time, in direct violation of
the Theory of Relativity.[1] Other serious factual errors have also been
pointed out in his works, including assertions that:
Mr. L. Schoeder is very detailed about how he chose his starting point for
timing the age of the universe. It's the time when matter first began to
form. Makes sense to me. The Genesis author had to choose a point to start
the narrative too. Schroeder just discovered where that starting point was.
Also, I don't think your "experts" read Schroeder closely. Schroeder does
not violate the Theory of Relativity. He merely times the events with a
cosmic clock based on the instant matter formed. God does not have to "rush
past the universe..." as you critic states below. Your list of criticisms
below are neither important nor accurate. If you had real problems with
Schroeder's thesis, you wouldn't have to distort his arguements and you
wouldn't have to nitpick.
My recommendation is that you open your mind. Take another look at Genesis
1. There you will find more wisdom than in the old interpretations of the
verses. Seek and you will find Genesis "knows" about evolution, about the
theory of relativity, about the age of the universe, about prehumans.
Perhaps there is even more. And, like James has pointed out, there is no
other ancient writing that comes close to this kind of knowlege and
convergence with science.
I'm surprised you aren't at least curious as to how this could be!
Sincerely,
Bob
*Masers fire atoms
*Kinetic energy is proportional to velocity
*Diffraction does not occur if the opening is larger than the wavelength
*Mass and weight are the same (he does not claim this, see Science of
God p. 48)
*Heat may be diluted by expansion
*hf = mc^2 (The left hand side is a variable, dependent on the
particle's velocity, while the right is a constant)
*Darwin believed in the inheritance traits acquired through a single
organism's life.
One of his most outspoken critics Mark Perakh said:"To satisfy the
requirements of the special theory of relativity, as per Schroeder's
explanation, we have to accept that, first, God is a physical body,
second, that it is a body which occupies a certain localized volume in
space, and third, to imagine that, during the six days of creation, the
Creator was rushing at an enormous speed past the universe he was
creating. What would then remain from the concept of the omnipresent
non-material God?"
So much for that. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: God made man, not a sperm |
24 Dec 2006 05:56:48 PM |
|
|
rjbjr wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:kdKdnUUHyK9Y1RHYnZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@comcast.com...
rjbjr wrote:
"James" <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:dtelo21sug0tinbor0hg7qnhn5ao822tbn@4ax.com...
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Re: God made man, not a sperm
But much of the Genesis account is in harmony with true science, thus
helping to negate claims of 'myth'. Here was my response to the
poster:
And the Bible is in fully harmony with humans existing for only
thousands of years, but the earth and universe for billions of years.
It has to do with what you consider is part of the "first day". If it
is computed one way, you must have a young earth and universe, and
young humans. If it is computed another way you get an indeterminate
earth and universe age, and young humans. The latter fits in more with
present day science, than the former. (more details on how those two
methods are computed, if you are interested)
James,
You might want to check out "The Science of God" by G. Schroeder. He
goes
into a lot of detail to explain how the 15 billion year estimate of
science
for the age of the universe is in total agreement with the Genesis
account.
===>Whioch is totally ridiculous.
Just an attempt to overcome someone's cognitive dissonance.
The Genesis fable beginns with the watery EARTH!
And the Earth is NOT 15 billion years old!
Mr L. Excuse me. Stuck on YOUR interpretation? The material that makes up
the earth was indeed formed 15 billion years ago according to science. At
that time, the earth was "formless and empty" just as Genesis states.
===>That is STUPID.
15 billion years ago there was NO WATER, and no Land (or "Earth).
DOn't you ever stop to think for a moment?
All you have to do is to realize that the days of Genesis prior to man
are
from a universal perspective, not from man's perspective, since no man
existed during that time.
===>"EVENING AND MORNING" means one 24-hr day.
Mr. L. Yes. You are correct. And, Schroeder agrees that the first day is
24 hours. But, who's 24 hours? I suppose YOU mean 24 earth hours.
===>Evening and Morning refer to EARTH hours, and
the story is about EARTH and the waters of Earth,
none of which existed 15 billion years ago.
But the
earth didn't exist on the first day. There wasn't even a place in the
universe for the earth on that first day. It wouldn't make sense to measure
those first 24 hours with earth time. I'm sure you would agree.
===>Only an idiot would agree.
The text is self-explanatory:
"When God began to create heaven and earth--the earth being
unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep
and a wind from God sweeping over the water" etc.
This is the best, most reliable translation of the first
lines of Genesis 1. (JPS TANAKH)
The only inaccuracy in it is the use of the word "God",
since the Hebrew text uses the plural ELOHIM, referring to
the mythical creating beings who, according to the fable,
came and, to use a modern term, TERRAFORMED the formless,
watery mass of Earth, out of which they created the
whole "world", the universe referred to as "heaven and earth".
If, you time the steps of creation as described in Genesis using
Schroeder's
"cosmic clock" that starts ticking with the formation of matter in the
universe, the whole process takes 6 days.
===>More didiculous nonsense.
- The universe did not start out from a formless, watery mass, as
described in Genesis.
- The Earth is not covered by a solid sky dome.
- The Sun, Moon and Stars are not big and little lights affixed
to that solid dome.
Mr L. A solid sky dome? Where do you read that? Perhaps you could provide
a verse for reference.
===>The "firmament".
The "vaulted dome".
Perhaps you cannot understand what it means, but the ancient
Hebrew writers did.
See e.g.Amos 9:6.
"The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens
And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth,
He who calls for the waters of the sea
And pours them out on the face of the earth,
The LORD is His name."
ALSO: Job 22:14.
"Clouds are a hiding place for Him,
so that He cannot see;
And He walks on the vault of heaven."
You see, those of us who REALLY studied the Bible
KNOW what it says, but don't try to use it to
justify silly beliefs that what it says is scientific
fact.
Dr. Shroeder is trying to excape his inner conflicts
by making sheer nonsense out of BOTH the Bible
AND science.
And, of course, the "universe" does not consist of the above
described earth covered by a star-studded sky dome.
Genesis is correct and there is
no conflict with the science of our day.
===>Nonsense.
Using this cosmic clock, the appearance of prehumans also agrees with
the
timing of the fossil record. Notice that Genesis talks about the
appearance
of two kinds of man in two verses.
===>MORE ridiculous absurdity.
Genesis 1 & 2ff contain two totally distinct creation fables.
One man is "made" and the second is
"created". This matches the fossil record where we have animals in
human
form, but without the "spirit" God "created" in the Adam.
===>How ridiculous! It is the FIRST story that says humans were made
"in the image and likeness" of the ELOHIM! And there is no dfifference
between "made" and "created".
Mr. L. Some statement! Are you and expert in ancient Hebrew?
===>Are you?
If not, what are you questioning?
What are you talking about? Do you really know?
With a
little googling, you'll find linguists do see a difference. So why are two
different verbs used?
===>What a dumb question.
Why do you think two different words are used for the creators?
"ELOHIM" in the first story and "YHWH" in the second story.
Because there were TWO DIFFERENT AUTHORS, writing
TWO DIFFERENT STORIES. One a sacred priestly story designed
to justify the celebration of the old Babylonian lunar day
of Sabbath (SHABBATU), the other is a SATIRE aimed at making
fun of the god of the Yahwist cult.
And, do I understand your interpretation of "in the
image and likeness" means exactly like GOD? I don't think so.
===>You unconsciously know that thinking can be hazardous to
your faith.
So, you don't THINK. Period.
We are
familiar with images and likenesses in paintings and photos, two dimensional
representations of three dimensional things. An image is a lesser
dimensional representation of an original higher dimensional object.
Perhaps this is a hint that God is more than a 3 dimensional entity.
===>Perhaps this is a hint you have no idea what you are talking about.
Kind
of agrees with String Theory don't you think?
===>No. Proving once again that
you have no idea what "string theory" is, either.
And images don't contain the
"spirit" of the original.
===>What "spirit"???
The first "men" didn't have that "spirit". It's
only later that God breathes that into the Adam.
===>That is your ridiculous conclusion.
It says the aline YHWH ELOHIM
simply blew some AIR into the noses of its creatures
to make them alive.
It is a FABLE! a FAIRY TALE!
You are making two MEN out of the same FIRST MAN
described in two different STORIES.
Perhaps you can tell me what YOU think the phrase means?
Even in Genesis 1, there are two verses devoted to man. The first verse
talks about "making".
===>That is how confused you are.
The verb used in Genesis 1:1 AND Gen. 1:27 is EXACTLY THE SAME:
the Hebrew "BARA".
If you think Gen. 1:1 refers to "craeting", then so does
1:27!
The second talks about "CREATING man".
===>Wrong again.
The second story says that YHWH ELOHIM
"FORMED MAN" from the dust of the earth!
So, you have it completely back-*****-ward.
Schroeder
points out, Jewish traditional interpretations going back hundreds of years
saw real significance in the two different verbs used and concluded there
were "souless" men who existed before God "created" something new and
different - man with a soul.
===>There is NOTHING about any "man with a soul".
The second story says that ALL creatures have "the breath"
of YHWH.
Again, the ancient writers understood this. See Eccl. 3:19.
"For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same.
As one dies so dies the other;
indeed, they all have the same breath
and there is no advantage for man over beast...
All go to the same place.
All came from the dust and all return to the dust."
It's amazing that
the Bible, written thousands of years before science even existed, got
it
right.
To properly understand what the Bible says in Genesis we need to combine
science with the Biblical teachings.
===>That is just a dumb attempt by your Shroeder at making ancient
fables sound real, because he realizes those fables are just that, but
wishes to insist that it is revealed divine truth.
Mr. L. I disagree.
===>Of course you do.
I did not think you would agree and don't expect to.
You are thoroughly confused, and refuse to think
and get unconfused.
Discovery is a process of being able to see things in
our universe from a new, different perspective than what most people see.
That's what Schroeder has done with Genesis.
===>What he did with Genesis and science is an outrageous absurdity.
I conclude you refuse to see how ridiculous those notions
are.
REMEMBER:
ERRARE HUMANUM,IN ERRORE PERSEVERARE STULTUM EST.
BEWARE:
THINKING CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR FAITH! -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John McComb" |
|
| Title: Re: God made man, not a sperm |
23 Dec 2006 08:54:56 AM |
|
|
rjbjr wrote:
Mr L. A solid sky dome? Where do you read that? Perhaps you could provide
a verse for reference.
No, that's correct. That's how the ancients viewed things. The
firmament is that great big, unreachable blue ball in the sky.
Firmament means a hard surface.
In Hebrew the word also means 'expanse'. Metaphorically the
image is astonishingly insightful. The hard surface is what
separates God's domain from ours. The waters that are contained
above it are, from our limited secular point of view, undefined.
Of course we can't pass through the barrier because we are
constrained by our own physical universe, that which was
constructed from the waters below the barrier.
Yours in Christ
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: God made man, not a sperm |
22 Dec 2006 01:25:54 AM |
|
|
James <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Re: God made man, not a sperm
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
When Christians talk about the 1 week creation of the world, old-earth
theorists say that the earth appears too old for its creation to be a
few thousand years old.
This is easy to answer with a simple question. Did God make man or a
sperm on that first day? Scripture says that God took soil and His own
breath and made a man (not a sperm). Then, God took Adam's rib and
made a woman (not an egg). The point? On the day God made man, he was
less than a day old, yet he appeared decades old in age. What makes us
think the world would be any different?
The common sense to realize that the Genesis story is a myth and not a
factual history report by eyewitnesses.
But much of the Genesis account is in harmony with true science, thus
helping to negate claims of 'myth'.
Who says that myths have no underlying symbolic truth?
There is truth in Genesis. What there isn't, is an "accurate
historical record" as that phrase is understood by historians.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: God made man, not a sperm |
22 Dec 2006 02:16:54 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
James <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Re: God made man, not a sperm
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
When Christians talk about the 1 week creation of the world, old-earth
theorists say that the earth appears too old for its creation to be a
few thousand years old.
This is easy to answer with a simple question. Did God make man or a
sperm on that first day? Scripture says that God took soil and His own
breath and made a man (not a sperm). Then, God took Adam's rib and
made a woman (not an egg). The point? On the day God made man, he was
less than a day old, yet he appeared decades old in age. What makes us
think the world would be any different?
The common sense to realize that the Genesis story is a myth and not a
factual history report by eyewitnesses.
But much of the Genesis account is in harmony with true science, thus
helping to negate claims of 'myth'.
Who says that myths have no underlying symbolic truth?
There is truth in Genesis. What there isn't, is an "accurate
historical record" as that phrase is understood by historians.
lojbab
===>What "truth"?
- That some extraterrestrial of the species ELOHIM,
by the name of YHWH, sculpted all living organisms
out of mud and blew air into their noses to make them
alive?
- Or that he got mad and refused them access to eternal life
because the earthlings ate one of his fruits?
- Or that he go REALLY mad because some of the ELOHIM
started mating with pretty earthling females, was
sorry for making humans, and decided to kill off all
life by flooding the whole earth?
Please tell us what "truth" you are seeing there?
There is a lot more truth in STAR TREK. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: God made man, not a sperm |
22 Dec 2006 02:42:14 PM |
|
|
In article <gJudnaSnoeCsoBHYnZ2dnUVZ_v63nZ2d@comcast.com> Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> writes:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
James <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Re: God made man, not a sperm
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
When Christians talk about the 1 week creation of the world, old-earth
theorists say that the earth appears too old for its creation to be a
few thousand years old.
This is easy to answer with a simple question. Did God make man or a
sperm on that first day? Scripture says that God took soil and His own
breath and made a man (not a sperm). Then, God took Adam's rib and
made a woman (not an egg). The point? On the day God made man, he was
less than a day old, yet he appeared decades old in age. What makes us
think the world would be any different?
The common sense to realize that the Genesis story is a myth and not a
factual history report by eyewitnesses.
But much of the Genesis account is in harmony with true science, thus
helping to negate claims of 'myth'.
Who says that myths have no underlying symbolic truth?
There is truth in Genesis. What there isn't, is an "accurate
historical record" as that phrase is understood by historians.
lojbab
===>What "truth"?
- That some extraterrestrial of the species ELOHIM,
by the name of YHWH, sculpted all living organisms
out of mud and blew air into their noses to make them
alive?
- Or that he got mad and refused them access to eternal life
because the earthlings ate one of his fruits?
- Or that he go REALLY mad because some of the ELOHIM
started mating with pretty earthling females, was
sorry for making humans, and decided to kill off all
life by flooding the whole earth?
Please tell us what "truth" you are seeing there?
There is a lot more truth in STAR TREK. -- L.
Oh, Bob's right: there's great mythic truth in the Eden story.
It's truth because it describes what all of us go through:
in the beginning -- our own personal beginning -- we are
in a state of complete ignorance and complete dependence
on our creators (both of them), utterly unaware of any
sense of right or wrong, with no shame at our nakedness,
and in a world that seems made entirely for our own benefit.
We are completely and effortlessly indulged.
As we grow up, paradise fades -- we begin to acquire a sense
that some things are "wrong", and along with that an
ability to feel guilt and shame. We experiment with
rebelling against our creators... and eventually we
are forced out of that world which seemed to revolve
around us and in which all our needs were effortlessly
met. We become aware of death, we struggle, we thrive or fall
purely by our own efforts -- and there is no going
back, ever.
I'd call that "truth".
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Willett" |
|
| Title: Re: God made man, not a sperm |
22 Dec 2006 04:33:25 PM |
|
|
It's a myth. An old foreign myth told by men in a far off time and place
who made it all up, just as men have made up myths everywhere. Nothing more.
Stop being so clever in trying to find significance in it. It is either
the word of the creator of the universe (in which case we're screwed as
he's a bloodthirsty genocidal psychopath without even parents to blame
it on) or it is just what it appears to be: a tribal myth like thousands
of others.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: God made man, not a sperm |
23 Dec 2006 02:47:06 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
This is easy to answer with a simple question. Did God make man or a
sperm on that first day? Scripture says that God took soil and His own
breath and made a man (not a sperm). Then, God took Adam's rib and
made a woman (not an egg). The point? On the day God made man, he was
less than a day old, yet he appeared decades old in age. What makes us
think the world would be any different?
The common sense to realize that the Genesis story is a myth and not a
factual history report by eyewitnesses.
But much of the Genesis account is in harmony with true science, thus
helping to negate claims of 'myth'.
Who says that myths have no underlying symbolic truth?
There is truth in Genesis. What there isn't, is an "accurate
historical record" as that phrase is understood by historians.
lojbab
===>What "truth"?
Symbolic truth, dummy.
- That some extraterrestrial of the species ELOHIM,
by the name of YHWH, sculpted all living organisms
out of mud and blew air into their noses to make them
alive?
- Or that he got mad and refused them access to eternal life
because the earthlings ate one of his fruits?
- Or that he go REALLY mad because some of the ELOHIM
started mating with pretty earthling females, was
sorry for making humans, and decided to kill off all
life by flooding the whole earth?
You don't seem to know what symbolism is in literature. Did you flunk
English lit class?
Please tell us what "truth" you are seeing there?
Well, some examples:
Knowledge, while it grants power to do things we couldn't otherwise,
can also reveal that which we lack, leading to unhappiness with our
current lot (of course then we can strive to better ourselves). Those
who don't know that a better life is possible can often be content
with their lot.
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you shall eat the plants of the field;
By the sweat of your face
You shall eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return."
Those verses should be self-explanatory, and are basic truths of the
futility of life without some higher spiritual aspiration, as well as
a nice poetic way of describing the difficulties of agrarian life.
"I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Yet your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you,"
Whether one wishes to consider it a curse from God, women do suffer
extreme pain in childbirth, and yet still have desire for their mates
afterwards, giving the mate some degree of power over her (of course
the same is true for men - their desire for women give women power
over them as well).
The Cain and Abel story reflects the historical contention between the
farmer and the herder, which has led to numerous agrarian wars up
until the modern era (the battles between the cowmen and the farmers
in the Old West are the stuff of some great movies. These wars were
especially fundamental to the history of ancient middle eastern
civilizations - as nomadic herders trained in weaponry, conquered the
more civilized agricultural areas, then in turn used their newly
gained wealth and power to settle down, become decadent, and in turn
be conquered by a later group of nomadic herders.
There are of course a lot more. And they are interesting independent
of your religious viewpoint, with many of them having no theological
component at all.
Remember that the essence of early religion was to provide
explanations for the problems and mysteries of life, and maybe some
solutions that satisfy emotionally. The questions that were raised,
whether you choose to believe the answer that the Bible gives, are
still valid questions, and it is a "truth" that man seeks answers to
those questions.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: God made man, not a sperm |
24 Dec 2006 04:27:58 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
This is easy to answer with a simple question. Did God make man or a
sperm on that first day? Scripture says that God took soil and His own
breath and made a man (not a sperm). Then, God took Adam's rib and
made a woman (not an egg). The point? On the day God made man, he was
less than a day old, yet he appeared decades old in age. What makes us
think the world would be any different?
The common sense to realize that the Genesis story is a myth and not a
factual history report by eyewitnesses.
But much of the Genesis account is in harmony with true science, thus
helping to negate claims of 'myth'.
Who says that myths have no underlying symbolic truth?
There is truth in Genesis. What there isn't, is an "accurate
historical record" as that phrase is understood by historians.
lojbab
===>What "truth"?
Symbolic truth, dummy.
===>A, square circle. I see.
What a cowardly cop out to resort to that
ridiculous explanation!
- That some extraterrestrial of the species ELOHIM,
by the name of YHWH, sculpted all living organisms
out of mud and blew air into their noses to make them
alive?
- Or that he got mad and refused them access to eternal life
because the earthlings ate one of his fruits?
- Or that he go REALLY mad because some of the ELOHIM
started mating with pretty earthling females, was
sorry for making humans, and decided to kill off all
life by flooding the whole earth?
You don't seem to know what symbolism is in literature. Did you flunk
English lit class?
===>You think calling it "symbolism" lets it make
more sense?
You can reinterpret ANYTHING with that dumb ploy.
You can take any Coimmunist of Nazi pamphlet and
claim that the nasty things in them are just "symbolism".
You can read any fairy tale and claim it is "symbolic".
Please tell us what "truth" you are seeing there?
Well, some examples:
Knowledge, while it grants power to do things we couldn't otherwise,
can also reveal that which we lack, leading to unhappiness with our
current lot (of course then we can strive to better ourselves). Those
who don't know that a better life is possible can often be content
with their lot.
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you shall eat the plants of the field;
By the sweat of your face
You shall eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return."
Those verses should be self-explanatory, and are basic truths of the
futility of life without some higher spiritual aspiration, as well as
a nice poetic way of describing the difficulties of agrarian life.
===>That mush is correct.
But the story was told to EXPLAIN WHY that "futility"
and "difficulties": because of the screw-up and nastiness
of an alien "creator".
THAT is what the point of the story is, so you are the
one who flunks reading comprehension.
"I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Yet your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you,"
Whether one wishes to consider it a curse from God,
===>There you go.
There is no "whether" about it in the story.
It actuall IS a "curse" from the nasty, jealous,
vindictive YHWH ELOHIM.
You just don't get it, do you?
women do suffer
extreme pain in childbirth, and yet still have desire for their mates
afterwards, giving the mate some degree of power over her (of course
the same is true for men - their desire for women give women power
over them as well).
===>Again you fall back on WHAT EXISTS, but that wold make the whole
story a meaningless recitation of human problems.
The story is told to explain WHY!
The same follows throughout your attempted argument.
It is pure nonsense.
The Cain and Abel story reflects the historical contention between the
farmer and the herder, which has led to numerous agrarian wars up
until the modern era (the battles between the cowmen and the farmers
in the Old West are the stuff of some great movies. These wars were
especially fundamental to the history of ancient middle eastern
civilizations - as nomadic herders trained in weaponry, conquered the
more civilized agricultural areas, then in turn used their newly
gained wealth and power to settle down, become decadent, and in turn
be conquered by a later group of nomadic herders.
There are of course a lot more. And they are interesting independent
of your religious viewpoint, with many of them having no theological
component at all.
Remember that the essence of early religion was to provide
explanations for the problems and mysteries of life, and maybe some
solutions that satisfy emotionally. The questions that were raised,
whether you choose to believe the answer that the Bible gives, are
still valid questions, and it is a "truth" that man seeks answers to
those questions.
===>Your problem is, you are stuck with the ANSWERS, justifying
them by claiming validity to the questions.
It is the ANSWERS that are untrue, not the questions.
Get it? -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: God made man, not a sperm |
25 Dec 2006 02:52:05 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
But much of the Genesis account is in harmony with true science, thus
helping to negate claims of 'myth'.
Who says that myths have no underlying symbolic truth?
There is truth in Genesis. What there isn't, is an "accurate
historical record" as that phrase is understood by historians.
===>What "truth"?
Symbolic truth, dummy.
===>A, square circle. I see.
What a cowardly cop out to resort to that
ridiculous explanation!
Not at all, since if you look above, I used precisely the same words
in my original claim. Symbolic truth.
You don't seem to know what symbolism is in literature. Did you flunk
English lit class?
===>You think calling it "symbolism" lets it make
more sense?
I gave several examples of the "sense", so obviously it does.
You can reinterpret ANYTHING with that dumb ploy.
If the text was originally written to be symbolic (I usually use
"parabolic" - Jesus taught in parables, and the Old Testament stories
are likewise parables) rather than historical truth, then there is no
"dumb ploy", just a recognition that the Bible is normal mythic
literature.
You can take any Coimmunist of Nazi pamphlet and
claim that the nasty things in them are just "symbolism".
Yes I could, although there is no reason to believe that there was any
intent to be symbolic.
You can read any fairy tale and claim it is "symbolic".
MOST fairy tales are indeed symbolic. That is why they were written.
The brothers Grimm actually wrote their fairy tales for adult readers,
and the Burton translation of the Arabian nights shows that they were
X-rated by present American standards. The goal in such tales is to
entertain while conveying a moral lesson.
Remember that the essence of early religion was to provide
explanations for the problems and mysteries of life, and maybe some
solutions that satisfy emotionally. The questions that were raised,
whether you choose to believe the answer that the Bible gives, are
still valid questions, and it is a "truth" that man seeks answers to
those questions.
===>Your problem is, you are stuck with the ANSWERS, justifying
them by claiming validity to the questions.
It is the ANSWERS that are untrue, not the questions.
Merely your opinion, which is no better than anyone else's
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
